Bombay High Court Holds Tata Motors Liable For Unfair Labour Practices, Directs To Compensate 52 Employees

Justice Ravindra Ghuge directed the automobile major to pay compensation to the 52 petitioners and set aside the Labour Court's orders. The bench observed that the company had a monitoring department to ensure temporary workers were disengaged before they completed the mandatory days of continuous employment.

"I find that the respondent-management has systematically prevented these temporaries from completing 240 days in continuous employment and had foisted involuntary unemployment on these temporaries before they could complete 240 days only to paint an imperfect picture that the work had come to an end and, therefore, these temporaries were disengaged by efflux of time, which is an exception to retrenchment u/s 2(oo) (bb)," the bench observed.

Fifty-two workers had filed the writ petition in the Bombay HC in 2019, however, this dispute dates back to 2005 when the workers first raised demand notices for permanent employment and back wages.

The Labour Court had rejected references of over 1500 employees, however, only 52 appealed the orders in the HC.

Before the High Court, Senior counsel Sanjay Singhvi and Rahul Kamerkar for the workers submitted that they were skilled in specific fields of car manufacturing like auto mechanics, painters, core finishers. They said that the company appointed the workers on a rotational basis for not more than 7 months, once a year.

The workers alleged discrimination as work being done by the permanent workers, could be extracted from these temporaries by payment of one-third salary. They pointed out instances wherein temporary employees were disengaged just four to 10 days before the "magic" 240 day continuous employment period.

Tata Motors was represented by Senior Advocate C.U. Singh. He argued that the worker would fall under the exception to the lengthy process of retrenchment under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act, pertaining to employment on a contract basis.

He argued that involuntary unemployment was not foisted upon these temporaries, that the management did not prevent them from completing 240 days and it is only because the work came to an end before they completed 240 days.

Observations

The court observed that if the appointment order of a temporary was for 7 months and he was disengaged after 238 days for the obvious fear that he would complete 240 days if he worked for 2 more days, then such termination would not fall within the exception sub-clause (bb). "It may not sound retrenchment, since the worker technically did not complete 240 days. But, it would certainly not be covered by sub-clause (bb)."

Whether the temporaries were prevented from completing 240 days?

After an independent assessment of evidence the HC said that it has come to a firm conclusion that in "hundreds of cases, the present respondent has created a farcical picture by posing that the work allotted to the temporaries was limited only to the maximum extent of 7 months."

The bench observed that the management official's statement revealed that the dedicated department for engagement of temporary workers, apparently kept a close watch on the duration of employment of the petitioners. The court cited the example of workers like Balu Bapuji Shelke, who had put in 232 days in his first round and 238 days in his third round, his service was abruptly intercepted and he was disengaged.

"He had almost reached the figure of 240 days and was thrown out, after completing 238 days. This indicates that the respondent-management has created an eye-wash and paper-work with the intention of creating evidence that no worker had completed 240 days," the court observed.

The High Court also observed that the Labour Court accepted the contention of the management at it's face value without properly analyzing the oral and documentary evidence.

"It is apparent from the impugned Award that the Labour Court did not apply it's mind to these factors.

The High Court found that conclusions of the labour Judge are absolutely without reasons and are perverse. 

Justice Ghuge noted that the management engaged temporaries in the 12 Divisions, throughout the year, and had "shrewdly avoided" bringing the date-wise recruitment of the temporaries, because such information would have "further exposed the rotational recruitment pattern and the planned termination of the temporaries by the management."

Based on the evidence of an official from the company the court noted that temporaries made up nearly two-thirds of permanent workers' strength in the manufacturing unit.

"The Reference IDA cases are partly allowed and it is declared that the respondent/ Management has indulged in unfair labour practices under Items 5(a), 5(b), 9 and 10 of the Fifth Schedule, in the light of Section 7 and Items 1 and 3 of the Second Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947"

The court refused permanent employment. It however granted compensation for each tenure to employees on the following lines.

Term of 211 days and above - Rs.75,000/-

Term in between 180 to 210 days - Rs.65,000/-

Term in between 150 to 179 days - Rs.55,000/

Term in between 120 to 149 days - Rs.45,000/-

Term in between 90 to 119 days - Rs.35,000/-

Term in between 60 to 89 days - Rs.25,000/-

Below 60 days - No compensation.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 74