BAJAJ AUTO LTD. versus BHOJANE GOPINATH D. AND ORS.

BAJAJ AUTO LTD. versus BHOJANE GOPINATH D. AND ORS.

Rule 4C of Model Standing Orders could not be omitted for industrial establishments in Maharashtra; deletion was null and void. Finding of unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV was based on sufficient evidence and stands. Interim order of High Court not an award; hence, no unfair practice under Item 9. Reinstatement and 50% back wages were not appropriate; reasonable compensation under Section 30(1)(b) was warranted.

Parties
Appellant: Bajaj Auto Ltd.; Respondents: Bhojane Gopinath D. and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
appeals disposed
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practices, Industrial Employment, Standing Orders, Permanency of Workmen, Compensation to Workmen
Labour Law Unfair Labour Practices Industrial Employment Standing Orders Permanency of Workmen Compensation to Workmen

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bajaj Auto Ltd.

Appellant

Bhojane Gopinath D. and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Model Standing Orders, including Rule 4C, are ipso facto applicable in Maharashtra despite certified standing orders not including Rule 4C
  2. 2 Whether deletion of Rule 4C by Certifying Officer was valid
  3. 3 Whether Industrial Court correctly found unfair labour practices under Schedule IV, Item 6 and Item 9

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 4C of Model Standing Orders could not be omitted for industrial establishments in Maharashtra; deletion was null and void. Finding of unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV was based on sufficient evidence and stands. Interim order of High Court not an award; hence, no unfair practice under Item 9. Reinstatement and 50% back wages were not appropriate; reasonable compensation under Section 30(1)(b) was warranted.

Court Disposition

appeals disposed

Orders

  • Directions of Industrial Court and High Court regarding regularization, permanency, and payment of 50% back wages set aside
  • Management to pay compensation to remaining workmen as per formula: 85 days’ salary (minimum Rs.8,000 per month or last drawn salary if higher) per year worked, plus lump-sum for three years (255 days) post-termination