Temporary Employment Not Unfair Labor Practice: Allahabad High Court's Judgement Clarifies

The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that temporary or seasonal employment does not constitute an act of unfair labor practices.

A bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra, citing the Bombay High Court’s judgment in Bajaj Auto Ltd, Akurdi, Pune Vs. R.P. Sawant and others, observed that such seasonal employment is beneficial to the society at large. The bench was considering a petition filed by a temporary Clerk Grade-III in the Respondent Company.

In this case, the Petitioner held the position of temporary Clerk Grade-III in the Respondent Company. The Petitioner's engagement details are as follows:

- From 01.06.1994 to 07.01.1995 (221 days)

- From 16.06.1995 to 07.01.1996 (206 days)

- From 14.04.1997 to 22.11.1997 (223 days)

This pattern continued for four years until 08.02.2000. The Petitioner argued that artificial breaks in service were deliberately created to prevent him from completing 240 days of continuous employment. This tactic was used to deny him the opportunity to become a permanent employee and the subsequent benefits provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The petitioner contended that the company had adopted ‘unfair labor practices’ as defined in the Entry No.10 of the 5th Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:

“10. To employ workmen as “badlies”, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen.”

He relied on the case of Shankar Bhimrao Kadam & Ors. v. Tata Motors Limited, where the Bombay High Court treated short term engagements as ‘unfair labor practice’. The defense of exigency of work was turned down by the High Court and an SLP against it was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

The Court, however, held that the Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to make the reference to the Industrial Tribunal. 

Further, it noted that the petitioner was temporarily engaged as and when his services were required by the company. It was also pointed out that the nature of appointment letters issued to the petitioner was different from the one issued in the Shankar Bhimrao case. Moreover, no termination letter was issued to the petitioner, which could fall within the definition of retrenchment.

In conclusion, the High Court held that the petitioner had failed to establish that it was a case of ‘unfair labor practices’. It noted that the entry in the 5th Schedule speaks of collective appointments and not of individual nature. Thus, the writ petition was dismissed.

The recent ruling by the Allahabad High Court clarifies that temporary or seasonal employment cannot be considered an act of unfair labor practices. The court emphasized that such employment arrangements are beneficial to society as a whole, referring to a judgment by the Bombay High Court in a similar case. The petitioner, a temporary Clerk Grade-III, argued that artificial breaks in service were intentionally created to prevent him from completing the required period for permanent employment and subsequent benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the court found that the petitioner failed to establish that unfair labor practices were involved in his case. The court highlighted the difference in the nature of appointment letters and the absence of a termination letter that would constitute retrenchment. Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed, affirming the legality of the temporary employment in question.(alert-success)