Summary
The Court held that the Bombay Model Standing Orders governed the airline’s workmen and could not be displaced by a settlement denying permanency. Temporary or badli workmen satisfying clause 4C were entitled to its benefits. The industrial award and High Court judgment rejecting the union’s claim were set aside; the insolvency issue was left undecided.
Issues
- Which government was the appropriate government for applying the standing-orders legislation to the airline.
- Whether a settlement could defeat permanency rights conferred by the applicable Model Standing Orders.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(b), Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946The airline was not under Central Government control; the State Government was the appropriate government and the Bombay Model Standing Orders applied. (¶¶ 4, 5)
- Model Standing Orders 4C and 32, Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959Clause 4C conferred permanency on qualifying badli or temporary workmen; clause 32 did not permit a settlement to abridge those statutory benefits. (¶¶ 15, 16)
Held
- The State Government was the appropriate government for these workmen. The applicable Bombay Model Standing Orders therefore governed their entitlement to permanency. (¶¶ 4, 5)
- Certified and Model Standing Orders have statutory force. An inconsistent contractual arrangement, whether made before or after the standing orders, cannot prevail over them; a more beneficial arrangement stands on a different footing. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
- Clause 4C requires qualifying uninterrupted aggregate service in the preceding twelve calendar months: 190 days in a seasonal establishment or 240 days in another establishment. In this case, the settlement could not take away permanency benefits available under that clause to the workmen who had completed the requisite 240 days. (¶¶ 15, 16)
- Clause 32 preserves rights under law and beneficial contractual arrangements; it does not authorize contracting out of the Model Standing Orders. The union was entitled to their benefits notwithstanding the settlement relied upon to deny permanency. (¶¶ 15, 16, 18)
- The insolvency issue had not been raised before the lower forums. The Court expressly declined to comment on it. (¶ 17)
Result
Appeal allowed. Industrial award and High Court judgment set aside; the union held entitled to benefits under the Bombay Model Standing Orders. No order as to costs.