JUDGMENT
B.N. Srikrishna J.
1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an order of the Industrial Court, Bombay, dated 15th October, 1992 made in Complaint (ULP) No. 1063 of 1992 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
2. The First Respondent is a Textile Mill owned ask possessed by the National Textile Corporation (Maharashtra North) Limited to which the ownership of the Textile Mill was transferred as a result of these Sick Textile Undertaking (Nationalisation) Act, 1974.
3. The Petitioner was working in the service of the First Respondent in its Textile Unit Known as (India United Mill No. 2′ as a Beam Carrier. The Petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No. 1063 of 1992 before the Industrial Court alleging unfair labour practices under Item 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The crux of the case pleaded in the complaint was that though the Petitioner has been working in the services of the First Respondent from 17.6.1977 as Badli Beam Carrier, he was not being made permanent though clear vacancy in the permanent post existed in the Weaving Miscellaneous Department. The Petitioner pleaded that since last four years he had been working on the vacant number 60 in the Department which was on account of retirement of one Mane, who was working as permanent operative on the said number and since the retirement of Mane, the Petitioner has been continuously working on the said vacant post without any interruption. In these circumstances, the Petitioner pleaded that the act of the First Respondent in not making him permanent as a Beam Carrier amounted to unfair labour practice under items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The provisions of the amended Modal Standing Orders were also pressed into service in support of the case. The Industrial Court by its impugned order dated 15th October, 1992 has taken the view that, in essence, the claim in the complaint amounted to demand for promotion which was purely a discretionary matter for the Employer, that the case of unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act had not been made out on facts and dismissed the complaint on merits. Hence this writ petition.
4. Mr. Kochar, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, strenuously contended that the finding of the Industrial Court in effect means that every claim for being made permanent in a post amounts to a claim for promotion. There is some substance in this grievance. As for as the facts of the present case are concerned, even on the footing alleged by the Petitioner, it was the case of the Petitioner that he was working as a Badli Beam Carrier on a vacant permanent post number 60 for a number of years. He was seeking permanency on that post. This was the basis on which the claim was pressed. In my view, a demand of this nature, per se, cannot be characterized as a demand for promotion. Basically, a demand for promotion involves a claim for assumption of higher responsibility on a job requiring higher or better occupational skill coupled with higher emoluments. It is not disputed that the wages and other emoluments payable to a Badli Beam Carrier and permanent Beam Carrier are identical. Under the applicable conditions of service, some leave facilities applicable to permanent employees may not have been made applicable to Badli employees. As far as the nature of work, skill and responsibility are concerned, it is not in dispute that the work of a Badli Beam Carrier is exactly the same as that of a permanent Beam Carrier is exactly the same as that of a permanent Beam Carrier. In fact, the definition of “Badli” under the applicable Standing Order is :
“A “badli” is one who is employed on the post of a permanent operative or probationer who is temporarily absent.”
This definition suggests that the right of a Badli workman to get work is contingent upon a permanent operative or probationer being temporarily absent. In fact, a contrast between the definite of a ‘permanent’ operative and the definition of ‘badli’ operative, defined in Standing Orders 3 of the applicable Standing Orders for operatives, does not in any manner indicate that a permanent operative is required to assume higher responsibilities or possess higher occupational skills or that he is entitled to any higher emoluments. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am, therefore, of the view that the Industrial Court erred in holding that the demand of the petitioner to be made a permanent Beam Carrier amounted to promotion and was consequently a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Management of the First Respondent. In my view, the Industrial Court had enough jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
5. One of the contentions raised in defence by the First Respondent was that, though initially there were 12 permanent posts of Beam Carriers in the Weaving Miscellaneous Department, by a registered agreement between the First Respondent and the Representative Union, there was rationalization and reduction of posts in several Departments including the Weaving Miscellaneous Department. A copy of the registered agreement is placed on record of this writ petition at pages 54 to 59. Clause 16 of the said registered agreement provides :
“The staff complement, work-loads and productivity of the employees in the mill a after re-structuring shall be fixed shift-wise/department-wise as indicated in the Annexure ‘A’ to this Agreement, keeping in view norms viz. 80 men per 100 equivalent loom shift applicable to Textile Industry in Bombay.”
Annexure ‘A’ to the said agreement shows the present sanctioned strength and the proposed sanctioned strength in different Departments. In the Weaving Miscellaneous Department, it is seen that the sanctioned permanent posts of Beam Carriers were six in the first shift and second shift, a total of twelve posts. Under the Registered Agreement, it was agreed that two permanent posts of Beam Carrier would be reduced in first shift and second shift each, resulting in reduction of four permanent posts of Beam Carriers. It is not disputed by Mr. Kochar that, though there are only 8 permanent posts of Beam Carriers, there are as many as 15 permanent operatives working as Beam Carriers. It is contended by Mr. Saiyed on behalf of the First Respondent, that, even on occasions when Badli work becomes available due to absence of a permanent operative on any one of the 8 permanent posts of Beam Carrier, first preference is given to a permanent operative holding the post of Beam Carrier, before the case of a Badli operative like the Petitioner could be considered. Mr. Saiyed assures the Court that the available Badli work of Beam Carriers shall be allotted, firstly, to the available permanent Beam Carrier and thereafter to the Badli Beam Carriers in accordance with their seniority. In fact, as I read it, the demand of the Petitioner was one for reclassification from the status of Badli Operative to Permanent Operative within the meaning of Standing Order 3.
6. Mr. Saiyed contends that, in facts and circumstances, there was no scope whatsoever for making the Petitioner permanent and the Industrial Court erred in over-looking the factual matrix of the case. This contention appears to be correct. The registered agreement between the Employer and the Representative Union is binding upon all the employees in the industry. Thus, the terms of the registered agreement dated 14th June, 1989 are binding upon the Petitioner and, in the face of the said registered agreement, he cannot press for permanency as a Beam Carrier. On merits, the claim of the Petitioner must fail as has been rightly rejected by the Industrial Court.
7. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.