https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197445 Completion of the qualifying service under the applicable standing order entitled the workman to permanent status, and the employer could not rely on a literal or defective drafting to defeat that benefit. The High Court held that Model Standing Order 4-C had to be construed purposively so its intended conferment of permanency was not frustrated, and that the Industrial Court misdirected itself by denying the claim despite the earlier appellate finding reinstating the workman. Refusal to recognise permanency and grant consequential benefits was held to constitute an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV, and the workman was entitled to permanent status from the earlier appellate order with monetary benefits flowing from that status. en-us Fri, 21 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Jan 2018 16:16:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197445 Completion of the qualifying service under the applicable standing order entitled the workman to permanent status, and the employer could not rely on a literal or defective drafting to defeat that benefit. The High Court held that Model Standing Order 4-C had to be construed purposively so its intended conferment of permanency was not frustrated, and that the Industrial Court misdirected itself by denying the claim despite the earlier appellate finding reinstating the workman. Refusal to recognise permanency and grant consequential benefits was held to constitute an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV, and the workman was entitled to permanent status from the earlier appellate order with monetary benefits flowing from that status. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 21 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197445