Introduction

The case of Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh v. M/S. Jet Airways Ltd. (2023 INSC 646) adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India on July 25, 2023, addresses a pivotal issue concerning the rights of workmen employed on fixed-term contracts. The appellant, Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh, representing 169 workmen engaged by Jet Airways Ltd., sought reinstatement with full back wages, arguing that the prolonged duration and nature of their employment warranted permanency under the Model Standing Orders. The respondent company contended that the existing settlement stipulated the terms of employment, thus negating the workers' claims.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the prior decision of the Bombay High Court and the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), which had dismissed the workers' demand for reinstatement. The High Court had upheld a CGIT award that interpreted the non-renewal of fixed-term contracts as non-retrenchment, thereby denying the workers' claim for permanency. However, the Supreme Court held that the Bombay Model Standing Order explicitly grants permanency to workmen who have completed 240 days of uninterrupted service, irrespective of any prior settlements or contracts that might suggest otherwise. Consequently, the Court quashed the earlier orders and ruled in favor of the appellant, ensuring the workmen's entitlement to permanency as per the Standing Orders.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key precedents that underscore the statutory importance of Standing Orders:

• U.P. SEB v. Hari Shankar Jain (1978): Highlighted the fundamental purpose of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, emphasizing the Act's role in defining employment terms and ensuring fairness and reasonableness through quasi-judicial scrutiny.
• Sudhir Chandra Sarkar v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (1984): Reinforced that Standing Orders possess statutory force, acting as a contract between employer and employee that cannot be overridden by unequal private agreements.
• Western India Match Company Ltd. v. Workmen: Established that the terms specified in Standing Orders take precedence over conflicting clauses in existing employment contracts or settlements, ensuring that no prior agreement can undermine the rights granted by Standing Orders unless it offers more benefits to the employees.
• Rasiklal Vaghajibhai Patel v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. (1985): Affirmed that any condition of service inconsistent with certified Standing Orders is invalid, thereby upholding the primacy of Standing Orders over private settlements unless the latter are more favorable to the employees.

Legal Reasoning

The Court meticulously dissected the relevant clauses of the Bombay Model Standing Order:

• Clause 4C-A: Mandates that any workman engaged for 240 uninterrupted days in a non-seasonal establishment must be made permanent, regardless of their inclusion in the muster roll.
• Clause 32: Declares that the Standing Orders take precedence over any existing laws, contracts, customs, or settlements, ensuring that they remain the governing document for employment terms.

Applying these clauses, the Supreme Court concluded that the prior settlement between Jet Airways and the workmen could not negate the statutory rights conferred by the Standing Orders. The Court emphasized that the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act is designed to protect workers' rights by preventing employers from circumventing established terms through unilateral or negotiated agreements that are less favorable to employees.

Impact

This landmark judgment reinforces the inviolability of certified Standing Orders, ensuring that employees cannot be deprived of statutory rights through private settlements. The decision serves as a precedent for future cases where employers might attempt to override Standing Orders, thereby solidifying the legal protections for workers and promoting fair labor practices. Employers must now exercise greater diligence in aligning their employment contracts with existing Standing Orders to avoid legal disputes and ensure compliance with statutory requirements.

Complex Concepts Simplified

To enhance understanding, the following legal terms and concepts from the judgment are elucidated:

• Standing Orders: A formal document detailing the terms and conditions of employment, thereby acting as a contract between the employer and employees within an industrial establishment.
• Model Standing Order: A standardized set of Standing Orders formulated for specific regions or industries, such as the Bombay Model Standing Order, which provides a template for employment terms under the jurisdiction of the State Government.
• Fixed-term Contract: An employment agreement that stipulates a specific duration of service, after which the contract terminates unless renewed.
• Appropriate Government: As defined under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, it refers to the governing authority (Central or State Government) responsible for enforcing the Act based on the nature and control of the industrial establishment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh v. M/S. Jet Airways Ltd. serves as a crucial affirmation of the protective framework established by the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. By prioritizing Standing Orders over private settlements, the Court has reinforced the statutory rights of employees, ensuring that their entitlements cannot be undermined by unilateral agreements. This decision not only safeguards workers' rights to permanency based on service duration but also mandates employers to adhere strictly to certified employment terms, thereby fostering a fair and equitable industrial environment.