The appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Bombay, which upheld an award by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT). The CGIT had rejected the Appellant-Union's demand for reinstatement with full back wages for 169 workmen. These workmen were temporarily engaged on fixed-term contracts by the Respondent, Jet Airways Ltd. The Union argued that the workmen were treated as temporary despite completing 240 days of service, as per the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959. A settlement was reached on 2002-05-02, where the Union gave up the demand for permanency in exchange for other benefits. The Respondent claimed the workers were not entitled to permanency based on this settlement. The CGIT framed the issue of whether the Union's
…The Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh (Appellant-Union) represented around 169 workmen who were temporarily engaged on fixed-term contracts by Jet Airways Ltd. (Respondent). These workmen were employed in various roles such as loader-cum-cleaners, drivers, and operators. The Union contended that despite the workmen completing 240 days of service, they were treated as temporary, violating the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959. A settlement dated 2002-05-02 was reached where the Union relinquished the demand for permanency in exchange for a package deal conferring other benefits. Jet Airways claimed that the workers were not entitled to permanency based on this settlement. The CGIT rejected the Union's demand for reinstatement with full back
…Sign in to view the parties.
A settlement was reached between the Union and…
The Central Government Industrial Tribunal…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.
The appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Bombay, which upheld an award by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT). The CGIT had rejected the Appellant-Union's demand for reinstatement with full back wages for 169 workmen. These workmen were temporarily engaged on fixed-term contracts by the Respondent, Jet Airways Ltd. The Union argued that the workmen were treated as temporary despite completing 240 days of service, as per the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959. A settlement was reached on 2002-05-02, where the Union gave up the demand for permanency in exchange for other benefits. The Respondent claimed the workers were not entitled to permanency based on this settlement. The CGIT framed the issue of whether the Union's
…The Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh (Appellant-Union) represented around 169 workmen who were temporarily engaged on fixed-term contracts by Jet Airways Ltd. (Respondent). These workmen were employed in various roles such as loader-cum-cleaners, drivers, and operators. The Union contended that despite the workmen completing 240 days of service, they were treated as temporary, violating the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959. A settlement dated 2002-05-02 was reached where the Union relinquished the demand for permanency in exchange for a package deal conferring other benefits. Jet Airways claimed that the workers were not entitled to permanency based on this settlement. The CGIT rejected the Union's demand for reinstatement with full back
…A settlement was reached between the Union and…
The Central Government Industrial Tribunal…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.