Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a complaint filed by the respondent employee before the Industrial Court, Yavatmal under Item No.9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, seeking benefits of service for the period he worked with Grampanchayat prior to his appointment in the petitioner Zilla Parishad. The employee had initially been employed with a Grampanchayat and after completing ten years of service became eligible for appointment in Zilla Parishad. By order dated 7/8/2009 he was appointed in the Zilla Parishad, continued in service, and superannuated. His complaint claimed that he had not resigned from the earlier service and therefore was entitled to count the previous service despite a condition in the appointment order that benefits would accrue only from the date of appointment in the Zilla Parishad. The Industrial Court accepted this contention and allowed the complaint by order dated 8/12/2023. Aggrieved, the Zilla Parishad filed the present writ petition challenging the Industrial Court's order. The core legal issues were whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction under Item No.9 of Schedule IV to grant relief in the absence of proof of unfair labour practice, and whether the employee could claim benefits of previous service despite the appointment condition and the requirement of resignation from Grampanchayat. The petitioner Zilla Parishad argued that the employee had failed to prove any unfair labour practice as contemplated by Item No.9, as he did not specify which award, agreement or settlement had not been implemented. The appointment order clearly stated that the appointment was subject to resignation from previous service and that benefits would commence from the date of appointment in the Zilla Parishad. The employee admitted these terms in cross-examination. Therefore, having accepted the terms without demur, he could not later complain. The respondent employee contended that since it was admitted that he had not resigned, he was entitled to benefits of previous service, and relied on Prafullakumar s/o Prabhakar Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2018 (2) Bom.LC 46. The petitioner distinguished that judgment on the ground that it involved a policy decision for employees moving between two Zilla Parishads, whereas no such policy or circular covered the present case. The High Court reasoned that a complaint under Item No.9 of Schedule IV requires the employee to prove failure by the employer to implement an award, agreement or settlement. Unless the Industrial Court records a finding of unfair labour practice, it has no jurisdiction. The court noted that the employee had completed ten years with Grampanchayat and became eligible for appointment in Zilla Parishad, but cessation of previous employment was a condition precedent for such appointment. Even if the employee claimed he had not resigned, he could not have been appointed without being deemed to have resigned. There was no case that the resignation condition was waived by any positive order. Further, the appointment order contained a stipulation that benefits were applicable from the date of appointment, and the employee admitted this in evidence. The employee did not specify any agreement, award or settlement not implemented. Thus no unfair labour practice was committed by the Zilla Parishad. The Industrial Court's reliance on Prafullakumar Deshmukh was misplaced because that case involved a policy decision for employees moving between Zilla Parishads, not from Grampanchayat to Zilla Parishad, and no policy or circular was shown to cover the present employee. Consequently, the High Court held the impugned order perverse and set it aside, dismissed the complaint, and allowed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practices - Item No.9 of Schedule IV MRTU & PULP Act - Initial Burden and Jurisdiction - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Item No. 9 of Schedule IV - Employee failed to prove failure to implement any award, agreement or settlement; Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief without finding of unfair labour practice; Held that complaint under Item 9 requires employee to prove employer engaged in unfair labour practices before Industrial Court can assume jurisdiction (Paras 7-9). B) Labour Law - Appointment Conditions - Cessation of Previous Employment as Condition Precedent - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Item No. 9 of Schedule IV - Employee was required to resign from Grampanchayat to be appointed in Zilla Parishad; even if not actually resigned, deemed resignation; no waiver by positive order; Held that employee could not claim benefits of previous service because cessation of previous employment was condition precedent for appointment (Para 8). C) Labour Law - Terms of Employment - Acceptance Without Demur - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Item No. 9 of Schedule IV - Appointment order stipulated benefits from date of appointment and employee admitted terms in cross-examination; employee cannot later challenge accepted terms unless unfair labour practice proved; Held that acceptance of employment terms without demur precludes later grievance (Paras 5, 9). D) Precedent - Distinguishing Prafullakumar Deshmukh - Policy Decision Applicability - Not mentioned - In Prafullakumar Deshmukh a policy covered inter-Zilla Parishad transfers, but no policy or circular covered Grampanchayat to Zilla Parishad appointment; Held that the precedent was distinguishable and did not apply to the instant facts (Para 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to grant relief under Item No.9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act without proof of unfair labour practice by the employer; whether the employee was entitled to count previous service with Grampanchayat despite the appointment condition requiring resignation and benefits from date of appointment.
Final Decision
Writ Petition allowed. Impugned order dated 8/12/2023 passed by Industrial Court, Yavatmal in Complaint (ULP) No. 106/2015 set aside. Complaint (ULP) No. 106/2015 dismissed.
Law Points
- For complaint under Item No.9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act
- initial burden on employee to prove failure to implement award
- agreement or settlement
- Industrial Court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief without finding of unfair labour practice
- Cessation of previous employment is condition precedent for appointment in Zilla Parishad
- Acceptance of appointment terms without demur precludes later challenge
- Policy decision in Prafullakumar Deshmukh not applicable to Grampanchayat to Zilla Parishad appointment
