ORDER : R.J. Kochar, J.—What the employees have complained to be an unfair labour practice under item 6 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 (the Act for short), the petitioner-employers have said to be-employment by rotation of 4000 employees for a period of less than 7 months. I would rather name it to be "Bajaj Rozgar Yojana" like, Jawahar Rozgar Yojana. They have averred so in their written statement and in their writ petition as under:- "(x) That the learned Industrial Court ex facie erred in concluding that there was an obligation on the petitioner company, to prove workers were engaged for work of seasonal or temporary nature. The learned Judge failed to realise that the appointments in the present case were purely contractual. By reason of this employment albeit on temporary and rotational basis, the petitioner was giving employment from time to time to as many as 4000 workers through the aforesaid rotation. This could not have been possible had the petitioner employed regular workers. The aforesaid temporaries were happy to accept the temporary employment for the last several years. It is only when these employees realised that the petitioner company was facing severe competition and may not in future be able to give them continued employment that they have malafide filed the present complaints." About 700 employees filed individual complaints before the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Pune u/s 28 read with Section 30 and Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act. The main thrust of the complaint was Item 6 i.e. "To employ employees as "badlis", casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees." The nub of their complaints is that the employer company has engineered a scheme or a modus operandi to employ persons as temporary employees for a period upto 7 months and thereafter given an artificial break to avoid to make them permanent under the Model Standing Orders (Item 9 of Schedule 4 of the Act). According to them such a scheme is in practice in the company for last several years with an object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen. According to them such a scheme is in practice in the company for last several years with an object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen. It is also their case that the work which they are required to do is of permanent nature and the posts where they do the work are permanent posts. They have further averred in their complaints that after 7 months they arc replaced by another batch of temporary employees. They further emphasised that they were not allowed to complete one year's continuous service to enable them to become permanent under the Model Standing Orders. In this manner they sought a declaration from the Industrial Court u/s 28 of the Act that the employers had engaged in an unfair labour practice and that they should be directed to cease and desist from doing so and further they should be directed to make the complainant employees permanent in employment with all the benefits of permanency with retrospective effect from the date of completion of 240 days in employment. 2. The employers filed their written statement and denied all the allegations of unfair labour practices and explained conditions of employment, production and market fluctuations and uncertainty of demand for their products (two and three wheelers) due to keen competition. They have tried to explain that they have a seniority list of employees category wise and work wise and they employ the employees from the said list on the basis of their seniority and availability of orders depending on the fluctuating market. These employees are employed and continued in accordance with the orders and availability of the work upto a period of 7 months and if work continues even for a long period. The company : has admitted the employment of employees as temporary for the increase in the work and till such increased work is available depending on the market. The company has denied that it has engaged in any unfair labour practice by employing the temporary employees as contemplated under Item 6 as it has given the same and equal wages to them on par with the permanent employees. It has also extended most of the benefits enjoyed by the permanent employees to the temporary employees. The company has denied that it has engaged in any unfair labour practice by employing the temporary employees as contemplated under Item 6 as it has given the same and equal wages to them on par with the permanent employees. It has also extended most of the benefits enjoyed by the permanent employees to the temporary employees. According to it only L.T.A., washing allowance, uniforms, leave and bus pass facility are not given to the temporary employees while in respect of all other facilities and benefits both are equally treated and there is parity in the service conditions of both the classes. The company has therefore vehemently denied that the temporary employees are denied the status and privileges of permanent employees. It has specifically averred that it employs about 6200 employees as permanent whose service conditions are governed by the contract of service, Model Standing Orders and the settlement with the recognised union which represents the majority of the employees. It has admitted the employment of temporary employees but it has denied that its object is to deny them the status and privileges of permanent employees. Its specific case is that it employs temporary employees as and when there is increase in work depending on the market conditions which are not steady or certain but keep on fluctuating and therefore, it cannot keep all the 4000 temporary employees as permanent in addition to its permanent strength of 6200 employees. The company's case is that out of the 4000 temporaries it employs on the basis of seniority and availability of work depending on the period and nature of work. It has emphasised that its rotation scheme is in consonance with the Model Standing Orders and not an unfair labour practice as complained of by the employees. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties broadly and briefly stated hereinabove they adduced before the Industrial Court oral and documentary evidence to prove their respective cases. Out of about 700 complainants only selective common evidence of 3 employees was adduced while the company also produced documents in addition to its oral evidence. To be precise here, I may say that there was no dispute about the factual basis between the parties. Out of about 700 complainants only selective common evidence of 3 employees was adduced while the company also produced documents in addition to its oral evidence. To be precise here, I may say that there was no dispute about the factual basis between the parties. Therefore, I have to examine and answer the question whether the admitted act of the company in employing the complainants as temporaries for years, was with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen, so that it could be declared as an unfair labour practice as contemplated by the Act and the Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act? Second question Which also requires to be scrutinised is whether such an act of the company is also violative of the provisions of the Model Standing Orders to attract the unfair labour practice within the meaning of the Item 9 of Section 4 of the Act? 4. Needless to say that both the parties have had already one round of journey upto the Supreme Court of India at the interlocutory stage on a prima facie view expressed earlier by this Court in different petitions by the different Benches of our High Court arising from the very same dispute between the very same parties. I am now set to decide the dispute finally keeping in mind the prima facie views of the learned Judges of our High Court whether the company has or has not engaged in any unfair labour practice as complained by the employees. 5. Temporary employment by itself is no anathema. No law or statute has prohibited any casual, badli or temporary employment in itself. In fact all the labour enactments have recognised the concept, practice and necessity of such employment and therefore they have given the exact definitions of casual, badli and temporary employees. The Standing Orders, model or certified, have classified and regulated such employment to avoid, abuse or misuse thereof in day to day practice. Such employment is not baneful but is beneficial to both the employer as well as the employees. In case of necessity and as and when occasion arises the employer has to engage a casual, badli or temporary. By doing so none actually suffers. Employees get some relief and employers' work does not suffer. And the permanent employees also are not overburdened by extra or additional increase in the work. In case of necessity and as and when occasion arises the employer has to engage a casual, badli or temporary. By doing so none actually suffers. Employees get some relief and employers' work does not suffer. And the permanent employees also are not overburdened by extra or additional increase in the work. If we ignore this reality and prevent such employment all will suffer in the process. I am of the opinion that there is nothing illegal, improper, immoral and unfair to engage a person for wages/remuneration as either casual, badli or temporary within the prescribed limits of the law. We cannot insist always for permanent employment or no employment at all. 6. The complainants have complained of an unfair labour practice as contemplated under item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act. The Act does not define precisely what is an unfair labour practice. The definition clause leaves it to Section 26 which in turn requires us to refer to the practices listed in the Schedules II, III and IV. It is significant to note that the Legislature has avoided to cast the net of the unfair labour practices too wide by giving a broad definition but it has only given workable descriptions of the situations to be called as the unfair labour practices "unless the context requires otherwise". The descriptions are borrowed from the various judgments of the Supreme Court. We will have to bear in mind that the consequences of the declaration of any act of the employer are penal and therefore we will have to construe the provisions cautiously. 7. As I have stated earlier that every employment need not necessarily be of permanent nature and it can be casual, badli or temporary also, none of such employment by itself is an unfair labour practice. To attract the Item 6 such employment should continue for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees, It is well known that to meet or cope up with the contingency of absenteeism of the permanent incumbents the prudent employers always maintain an extra work force to be available on their list to be employed as either badli or casual. Some employers keep even 25% additional work force at their beck and call to be instantly employed in the place of a permanent employee who remains absent or who goes on long leave or short leave. Temporary work force is also required to meet the additional work or temporary increase in the work depending upon the market and also the seasonal demands. The industrial law can never be oblivious of these normal and usual occurrences in the industries. None can deny temporary seasonal increase in work would require more temporary hands to meet the situation. We also cannot be blind to the fact that at least for a temporary period unemployed people would get employment and solve their problem of bread if not butter. And furthermore, how can we force the employer to continue these temporary employees on permanent basis after his needs are completed and if there is no work available for them? Had it been so, it would have adverse effect as no employer would offer any temporary employment and he might better not accept increased orders and would remain satisfied with what he has. A kind of stagnation in the society would come to stay. Our industrial wheels would be on slow motion. Such a situation would have very serious repercussions in the long run. Besides, the legislature has not been unaware of the fact that every industry has its own season for increase or reduction in the demands resulting in increase or reduction in the requirement of the number of employees. It is, therefore, not possible to hold that temporary employment for every seasonal increase in the industrial activities is also an unfair labour practice. By seasonal employment I do not mean any natural season only. There are many periods in a year for varying reasons demands for some commodity would go up. To meet every such spurt in the market, temporary employees become a necessity until the market comes down to its earlier level of demands. If it remains and continues in its increased higher level for a very long period and if the employer continues the temporary employees as temporary in that case it could be possibly argued in favour of an unfair labour practice if the object of the employer is clearly established. If it remains and continues in its increased higher level for a very long period and if the employer continues the temporary employees as temporary in that case it could be possibly argued in favour of an unfair labour practice if the object of the employer is clearly established. It is therefore very clear that the legislature has not contemplated every temporary employment even for years, per se, to be an unfair labour practice. The Legislature has very advisedly added a qualifying clause "with the object of........." and unless and until this crucial condition is satisfied the charge of Item 6 unfair labour practice cannot be said to have been proved. This item would squarely apply to an employer who runs his industry for the whole year continuously by engaging the temporary employees and continuing them as such for years. The work being of perennial nature requiring a permanent complement of workmen employment of temporary workmen for years would be an apt situation for the Item 6 if they are deprived of the status and privileges of the permanent employees. According to me mere temporary employment for some part of every year without the sinister object of the employer will not fall within the mischief of the Item 6. 8. Having ascertained the limitations of the unfair labour practice under Item 6, let us scrutinise the facts of the present case to find out whether all the ingredients or elements of the Item 6 are established. In our case, the temporary employment of all the 700 employees for years is not a disputed fact but is fairly admitted by the company. What is disputed or denied is the sinister object to deprive them of status and privilege of permanent employees. The company has clearly pleaded that on account of fluctuations in the market to meet the increased demands it requires temporary employees for every year till the demands are satisfied, and that it employs the temporary hand as provided under the Model Standing Orders. It has also further clearly averred that its permanent complement of the workmen is determined under its settlement dated June 21, 1998 with the recognised union and that it has no permanent vacant posts. And that its temporary employment wholly depends upon the temporary increase in its orders from the ever fluctuating markets. It has also further clearly averred that its permanent complement of the workmen is determined under its settlement dated June 21, 1998 with the recognised union and that it has no permanent vacant posts. And that its temporary employment wholly depends upon the temporary increase in its orders from the ever fluctuating markets. The company has specifically pleaded that it maintains a seniority list as provided under the Model Standing Orders and it offers temporary employment for a stipulated period in accordance with the seniority of the employees and requirements of the jobs. It is also the case of the company that after completion of the stipulated period if job is not completed the incumbents are continued till the job is completed and that it does not discontinue them and it does not employ in their place another batch of temporary employees to do the same job. It has denied the charge of the complainants that it goes on replacing one temporary employee by another and that it never allows anyone to complete 240 days in a year. It issues appointment orders for a period of 7 months depending on the requirement of jobs and continues thereafter or discontinues there before depending on the availability of work. The whole emphasis of the company is on the availability of the orders and not the object to deprive the temporary employees of the status and privileges of permanent employees. 9. The company has in no uncertain terms pleaded and proved that the temporary employees are treated on par with its permanent employees in respect of wages, dearness allowance, provident funds and E.S.I.S. and all other benefits. There is no dispute on this aspect. It is an admitted position that they are not getting only some marginal benefits such as leave on par with the permanent employees though they are given leave in accordance with the Factories Act, Uniforms, L.T.A. and bus facility. These are really marginal benefits which are not extended to the temporary employees. According to me it cannot be said that they are really deprived of the privileges of the permanent employees. These are really marginal benefits which are not extended to the temporary employees. According to me it cannot be said that they are really deprived of the privileges of the permanent employees. Had the company not paid them the same wage scale including the dearness allowance and had there been a vast difference and disparity in the wages between the permanent and the temporary employees it could be said that the company deliberately employs temporary employees on a meagre wage to save huge amounts. That is not so in our case. There is no disparity of wage between the two classes. Only marginal benefits are denied to them. On that basis alone it cannot be said that the company is engaging in an unfair labour practice to save for itself by denying the legitimate dues to the temporary employees. I do not find any sinister motive or design on the part of company in its act of employing temporary employees for temporary increase in work. The crucial underlying object is absent and the complainants have not been able to establish the object to establish the unfair labour practice under Item 6 of the Schedule IV of the Act. Unless this crucial and extremely important link is established, mere temporary employment even for years will not attract the Item 6. If seasonal employment is hot an unfair labour practice how temporary employment depending on the vagaries of market can be per se, an unfair labour practice. Moreover, in our case the temporary employees pay packet is equal, all other service conditions are equal barring a few marginal and negligible benefits which are not given to the temporary employees, the evil object is totally absent in our case. 10. We also cannot lose sight of another aspect which was highlighted by the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union Vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi and others, the Supreme Court therein has observed in paras 21, 22, 23 and 24 as follows:- "21. Viewed in the context of the facts of the present case it is apparent that the schemes under which the petitioners were given employment have been evolved to provide income for those who are below the poverty line and particularly during the periods when they are without any source of livelihood and, therefore, without any income whatsoever. Viewed in the context of the facts of the present case it is apparent that the schemes under which the petitioners were given employment have been evolved to provide income for those who are below the poverty line and particularly during the periods when they are without any source of livelihood and, therefore, without any income whatsoever. The schemes were further meant for the rural poor, for the object of the schemes was to start tackling the problem of poverty from that end. The object was not to provide the right to work as such even to the rural poor - much less to the unemployed in general. As has been pointed out by the Union of India in their additional affidavit, in 1987-88, 33 per cent of the total rural population was below the poverty line. This meant about 35 million families. To eliminate poverty and to generate full employment 2500-3000 million maydays of work in a year was a necessary. As against that, the Jawahar Rozgar Yojana could provide only 870 million maydays of employment on intermittent basis in neighbourhood projects. Within the available resources of Rs. 2600 crores, in all 3.10 million people alone could be provided with permanent employment, if they were to be provided work for 273 days in a year on minimum wages. However, under the scheme meant for providing work for only 80-90 days work could be provided to 9.30 million people. "22. The above figures show that if the resources used for the Jawahar Rozgar Yojana were in their entirety to be used for providing full employment throughout the year, they would have given employment only to a small percentage of the population in need of income, the remaining vast majority being left with no income whatsoever. No fault could, therefore, be found with the limited object of the scheme given the limited resources at the disposal of- the State. Those employed under the scheme, therefore, could not ask for more than what the scheme intended to give them. To get an employment under such scheme and to claim on the basis of the said employment, a right to regularisation is to frustrate the scheme itself. No Court can be a party to such exercise. Those employed under the scheme, therefore, could not ask for more than what the scheme intended to give them. To get an employment under such scheme and to claim on the basis of the said employment, a right to regularisation is to frustrate the scheme itself. No Court can be a party to such exercise. It is wrong to approach the problems of those employed under such schemes with a view to providing them with full employment and guaranteeing equal pay for equal work. These concepts, in the context of such schemes are both unwarranted and misplaced. They will do more harm than good by depriving the many of the little income that they may get to keep them from starvation. They would benefit a few at the cost of the many starving poor for whom the schemes are meant That would also force the State to wind up the existing schemes and forbid them from introducing the new ones, for want of resources. This is not to say that the problems of the unemployed deserve no consideration or sympathy. This is only to emphasise that even among the unemployed a distinction exists between those who live below and above the poverty line, those in need of partial and those in need of full employment, the educated and uneducated, the rural and urban unemployed etc." "23. Apart from the fact that the petitioners cannot be directed to be regularised for the reasons given above, we may take note of the pernicious consequences to which the direction for regularisation of workmen on the only ground that they have put in work for 240 or more days, has been leading, although there is Employment Exchange Act which requires recruitment on the basis of registration in the Employment Exchange, it has become a common practice to ignore the Employment Exchange and the persons registered in the Employment Exchanges, and to employ and get employed directly those who are either not registered with the Employment Exchange or who though registered are lower in the long waiting list in the Employment Register. The Courts can take judicial notice of the fact that such employment is sought and given directly for various illegal considerations including money. The Courts can take judicial notice of the fact that such employment is sought and given directly for various illegal considerations including money. The employment is given first for temporary periods with technical breaks to circumvent the relevant rules, and is continued for 240 or more days with a view to give the benefit of regularisation knowing the judicial trend that those who have completed 240 or more days are directed to be automatically regularised. A good deal of illegal employment market has developed resulting in a new source of corruption and frustration. of those who are waiting at the Employment Exchanges for years. Not all those who gain such back door entry in the employment are in need of the particular jobs. Though already employed elsewhere, they join the jobs for better and secured prospects. That is why most of the cases which come to the Courts are of employment in Government Departments, Public Undertakings or Agencies. Ultimately it is the people who bear the heavy burden of the surplus labour. The other equally injurious effect of indiscriminate regularisation has been that many of the agencies have stopped undertaking casual or temporary works though they are urgent and essential for fear that if those who are employed on such works are required to be continued for 240 or more days have to be absorbed as regular employees although the works are time-bound and there is no need for the workmen beyond the completion of the works undertaken. The public interests are thus jeopardised on both counts." "24. In the circumstances, it is not possible to accede to the request of the petitioners that the respondents be directed to regularise them. The most that can be done for them is to direct the respondent-Delhi Administration to keep them on a panel and if they are registered with the Employment Exchange and are qualified to be appointed on the relevant posts, give them a preference in employment whenever there occurs a vacancy in the regular posts, which direction we give hereby." 11. We cannot just condemn the petitioner company merely because it has been engaging temporary employees in accordance with its needs. The Supreme Court has very aptly observed in the case of General Labour Union (Red Flag) Bombay Vs. We cannot just condemn the petitioner company merely because it has been engaging temporary employees in accordance with its needs. The Supreme Court has very aptly observed in the case of General Labour Union (Red Flag) Bombay Vs. B.V. Chavan and Others the Supreme Court observed: - "Therefore, the true test is that when it is claimed that the employer has resorted to closure of industrial activity, the Industrial Court in order to determine whether the employer is guilty of unfair labour practice must ascertain on evidence produced before it whether the closure was a device or pretence to terminate services of workmen or whether it is bona fide and for reasons beyond the control of the employer." It is, therefore, the question of bona fides and the object of the petitioner company in engaging the temporary employees. From the whole evidence and material on record, I do not see in any manner the industrial activity of the petitioner company had any element of unfair labour practice when it increased and reduced the temporary labour force on the basis of the fluctuation in the market. 12. In our case also the company has a list of about 4000 temporary employees as per their seniority under the Model Standing Orders. Out of them about 700 are given temporary jobs by rotation depending on the availability of the work. In the light of the observations of the Supreme Court we must appreciate that some unemployed persons get some jobs for some part of a year instead of only a few for the whole year. In the given conditions if a larger number gets some food for some period it is a better situation than the one that one set of permanent employees alone get fully fed while the others fully starved. Till we achieve the goal of full employment for all, we should strike a balance of partial employment of the maximum possible for the largest possible segment of the people Considering the facts of our case I am of the opinion that the object contemplated in the Item 6 is absent. There is hardly any motive to exploit the toiling labour class by giving them temporary employment. There is hardly any motive to exploit the toiling labour class by giving them temporary employment. It is further significant to note that the service conditions of the temporary employees are also governed by the settlement dated June 21, 1998 entered between the company and the recognised union for the permanent employees. Barring the aforesaid marginal benefits, the temporary employees are covered under the said settlement along with the permanent employees. There is a parity between both the classes to a great and substantial extent, while the crucial object is absent to that extent. In view of this matter I am also satisfied that there is no application of Item 5 of Schedule IV of the Act as there is no favoritism between the two classes regardless of merits. Furthermore, there is no failure to implement either any settlement or agreement as the company is organising its temporary employment within the provisions of the Model Standing Orders and there does not appear any infraction thereof. Shri Singhavi the learned Counsel for the employees has rightly not even touched Item 10 of "force and violence". 13. The Industrial Court has dealt with the matter on its periphery and not applied its judicious mind in depth. The Industrial Court ought to have probed into the problem with an insight in the working of the industry of the petitioner company. The petitioner company at no point of time has denied that it was employing temporary employees for temporary period. The very positive case of the petitioner company has all along been that they are required to employ the temporary employees as and when their requirement arises depending on the increased workload on the basis of increased demand from the market, which keeps on fluctuating and the petitioners have no control over the fluctuating markets. Simply relying on this admitted and established fact of temporary employment of the temporary employees, the Industrial Court has recorded a finding of an unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act. The Industrial Court has unfortunately placed the whole burden on the petitioner company to prove the unfair labour practice as contemplated by the said Item. The crucial evidence is regarding the crucial word "object", which is staring in the face to conclude an unfair labour practice. The Industrial Court has unfortunately placed the whole burden on the petitioner company to prove the unfair labour practice as contemplated by the said Item. The crucial evidence is regarding the crucial word "object", which is staring in the face to conclude an unfair labour practice. There must be an object on the part of the employer to deny the status and benefits of permanent employment. In our case, the employees have not been able to establish this crucial link between their temporary employees and the petitioner's motive/intentions to deprive them of the status and benefits of permanency. Unless and until the object is positively and specifically shown, it cannot be said that mere temporary employment by the company would straightaway attract the said Item 6. We can very well visualise as a market reality that the industries get demands for their products and to meet such demands additional or extra hands are taken in employment and as soon as there is recession in the demands they automatically become surplus required to be terminated from employment. We just cannot put a stamp of unfair labour practice on the employer who is required to meet the situation like this on and off and frequently in a year. He cannot be blamed merely because he terminates his temporary employees after the increased workload is done with. He further cannot be blamed when he employs either the same group of temporary employees or other temporary employees quickly available in the market when he gets another order whereby his regular production is required to be increased. We just cannot be blind to this reality that on and off markets fluctuate and there is necessity to employ temporary hands to meet the exigencies of the markets. According to me, therefore, the complainants/employees have not established the object of the petitioner company as contemplated by the law. The Industrial Court has nowhere found that the petitioner company has ulterior motive or illegitimate intentions to employ the temporary employees and to continue them for years with the avowed object of depriving them of the status and the benefits of permanency. The Industrial Court has nowhere found that the petitioner company has ulterior motive or illegitimate intentions to employ the temporary employees and to continue them for years with the avowed object of depriving them of the status and the benefits of permanency. In our case, we cannot forget for a minute that the petitioner company has treated the temporary: employees on par with the permanent employees in respect of the wages, dearness allowance and all other benefits by extending the coverage of the settlement dated June 21, 1998 between the company and the recognised union for the permanent workmen. Even earlier to this settlement it has been an admitted position that the temporary employees were getting all the benefits of the permanent workmen excepting a few marginal benefits such as leave, L.T.A. and uniforms. Merely because these marginal benefits are denied to temporary employees we cannot conclude that there is an unfair labour practice on the part of the petitioner company as the aforesaid marginal benefits are denied to the temporary employees. Had there been an illegitimate intention or ulterior motive or an object to deprive the temporary employees of status and benefits of the permanent employees, in that case the petitioner company would have employed the temporary employees by denying them the parity of wages and other benefits available to the permanent workmen. The temporary employees would have been paid only paltry sum by way of daily rate and not the entire pay package which a permanent workman gets. In that case, the petitioner company would have managed to deny to the temporary employees even the benefits of provident fund and E.S.I.C. The very fact that the temporary employees are covered by the settlement proves absence of the object which is the foundation of the Item No. 6. According to me, the Industrial Court ought to have considered the complaint from this angle. Industrial Court has dealt with the problems superfluously. 14. Considering the case from a little different angle, we come to the same conclusion. When a permanent workman, if he is found surplus, can be retrenched from employment after complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, why a temporary employee cannot be terminated from employment, if there is no work available for him. 14. Considering the case from a little different angle, we come to the same conclusion. When a permanent workman, if he is found surplus, can be retrenched from employment after complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, why a temporary employee cannot be terminated from employment, if there is no work available for him. If such a temporary employee has completed 240 days continuous employment, he can be dispensed with on payment of retrenchment compensation as per the law. If the employer gets some increased work requiring additional hands, he has to offer the employment to the retrenched workman on priority basis as provided u/s 25-G of the I.D. Act. If this cycle can go on lawfully, I fail to understand why the petitioner cannot employ temporary employees as and when work increases and why they cannot be terminated when there is no work and why they again cannot re-employ when more work is available. As I have already stated earlier, there is no prohibition or bar to employ casual, badli or temporary employees depending on the exigencies of the work. If there is no evil object present in the mind of the employer, such employment by itself per se cannot be termed as an unfair labour practice. 15. It is for the employer or the petitioner company to manage its own affairs within the legal framework without violating any provisions of the labour laws. The internal complexities or complicated issues cropping up in the shop floor will have to be dealt with by the management. We cannot visualise the difficulties and practical problems of the employers on the shop floor of the factories. The Courts cannot be expected to enter the shop floors of the factories and cannot guide or decide the technical and managerial matters. We have to keep all these at quite a safe distance in all these matters. It is for the employer to decide when to employ temporary employees and when to terminate them in accordance with law. He is to only safeguard that there are no illegal objects as contemplated by law. 16. Every act of management in organising its business affairs on the shop floor cannot be termed as unfair labour practice. The item internal adjustments must be entirely left to the shop floor managers. He is to only safeguard that there are no illegal objects as contemplated by law. 16. Every act of management in organising its business affairs on the shop floor cannot be termed as unfair labour practice. The item internal adjustments must be entirely left to the shop floor managers. The Courts cannot be dragged on to the shop floor activities as the judges are not in any way experts in the technical and management affairs. The Industrial Court has rushed to a conclusion merely because overtime was given to some permanent employees occasionally; and that the company has sufficient work to be given to the temporary employees and that they are entitled to be absorbed in the employment. The Industrial Court has also failed to consider the introduction of new automatic machines resulting in reduction of manpower and also reduction in the requirements of temporary employees which is reflected from the figures given by the company. The Industrial Court surprisingly has not believed these factors put forward by the company in its defence that its requirements for temporary employees has gone down sufficiently. In support of this contention the company has prepared charts and documents but the Industrial Court has not believed those documents. I fail to understand why the petitioner company which has been paying the temporary employees on par with its permanent employees should manufacture any bogus documents. From the entire material on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner company has not denied the full and legitimate dues to the temporary employees on par with the permanent employees barring some marginal benefits. Like any tax payer who is always willing to have some rebate in the payment of tax by taking concessions under certain exemption schemes available under the law, it might be that the petitioner company also has tried to avail of the concession by not paying the temporary employees certain marginal benefits such as L.T.A., Uniforms etc. which are given to the permanent employees. As I have already observed that from the, aforesaid fact itself the act of the company does not become an unfair labour practice under Item 6 of the Schedule IV of the Act. The law certainly contemplates a patent act of unfair labour practice and clear cut illegalities. which are given to the permanent employees. As I have already observed that from the, aforesaid fact itself the act of the company does not become an unfair labour practice under Item 6 of the Schedule IV of the Act. The law certainly contemplates a patent act of unfair labour practice and clear cut illegalities. In the present case, according to me, there is no patent or even latent act of unfair labour practice on the part of the petitioner company. 17. If temporary employment is to be condemned as an unfair labour practice, we will have to condemn the whole Public Works Department as also other Government departments as the works undertaken by these departments for the public welfare and benefits, such as road building, dam construction are of temporary nature and it cannot be denied that such projects and schemes are intermittently undertaken and the employees are co- terminus with the projects and schemes. The State or any public department, municipal corporation or municipal councils undertake any projects or schemes and employ employees for such projects or schemes and they are terminated as soon as such projects or schemes are completed. All these State functionaries start some other projects and schemes and employ the temporary employees. Can it be ever said that they engage in any unfair labour practice because the same set or group of the temporary employees very often continued to be the same? The Public Works Department has classified these temporary employees as regular temporary, converted regular temporary and so on . All these temporary employees continue for years together in accordance with their service regulations and they are extended the same benefits of permanent employees, barring some marginal benefits which are available to permanent employees exclusively. In Public Works Department after 5 years of employment (non continuous), the worker or the employee is treated to be eligible to be absorbed in a permanent posting. In our case also the petitioner company is bound by its Model Standing Orders and has to absorb for their permanent postings, the employees from the seniority list of temporary employees. As it happens in the construction industry, where the builder or the developer constructs buildings one after another and employed employees in accordance with the projects which are undertaken by them. As it happens in the construction industry, where the builder or the developer constructs buildings one after another and employed employees in accordance with the projects which are undertaken by them. If the same builder has no next project he cannot continue the employees who were employed by him for a particular project which is completed. He would recall them for his another project. Similarly, if the petitioner company has been employing the temporary employees in accordance with market situation and in accordance with the increase in the demands for its projects intermittently on and off basis, we cannot rush to a conclusion that the company has engaged in an unfair labour practice. To insist on continuation of the temporary employees even after the increased quantum of work is over it, would amount to incurring unnecessary wage bill without any production. By doing so, the State, its instrumentalities, public corporations and the private enterprises will increase the cost of production and in turn the increased cost will be passed over to the consumers. Finally the society at large would suffer. No one can be called upon to pay the employees without production. We must appreciate this factor in the industrial sphere. We cannot have any static state of affairs to rush to certain conclusions that the employment of temporary employees intermittently, per se, would amount to an unfair labour practice. 18. I cannot resist my temptation from following the spirit underlying the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Administration (supra). Let the large underfed families be fed for some part of the year instead of a few families getting fed for the whole year. I am aware context of the said judgment is little different but I wish to draw strength from the philosophy beneath the said judgment that large number of mouths should be fed for greater period of the year, than smaller number of mouths getting fed for the whole year. Like riches there should be also distribution of poverty. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I hold that the petitioner company has not engaged in any unfair labour practice either. 19. I, therefore, hold and declare that there is no unfair labour practice engaged by the petitioner company as alleged by the complainants employees. The petition, therefore, succeeds. Like riches there should be also distribution of poverty. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I hold that the petitioner company has not engaged in any unfair labour practice either. 19. I, therefore, hold and declare that there is no unfair labour practice engaged by the petitioner company as alleged by the complainants employees. The petition, therefore, succeeds. The rule is made absolute in terms of prayers 21 (a) on the following conditions: (i) The petitioner company shall strictly follow the list of the complainants temporary employees under the Model Standing Orders while absorbing them as its permanent employees in any of its undertakings. (ii) The petitioner company shall give priority to the complainants temporary employees according to their seniority in the category and service while employing for the newly proposed factory at Chakan on permanent basis. (iii) The petitioner company shall make its best efforts to remove even the marginal disparity between the benefits of the permanent and the temporary employees. 20. Since I have held in W.P. 5550 of 1998 filed by the company that it has not engaged in any unfair labour practice by the employment of about 700 complainants temporary employees, the present Petition No. 5536 of 1998 filed by about 300 (out of the 700 temporary employees) is required to be dismissed. Their services were terminated much earlier and the Industrial Court has held against them for different reasons. As far as their complaints of unfair labour practice are concerned, they are to be treated on par with the other 400 temporary employees in the companion petition. The present writ petition filed by the 300 temporary employees is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. No orders as to costs. Interim orders if any are vacated. 21. Stay of the Order is granted for six weeks. 22. Parties to act on ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate of this Court. 23. Certified copy expedited.