Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST), challenged a judgment and order dated 17th October 2019 passed by the President of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Mumbai, in Complaint (ULP) No.183 of 2014. The complaint was filed by the respondent union and 17 individual daily wager employees under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Industrial Court partly allowed the complaint, declaring that BEST had committed unfair labour practice under Item 9 and directed BEST to pay increments to the complainants from the date of appointment till the date of their permanency and grant privilege leave and sick leave on pro-rata basis as per Clause 4(2)(iii) @ (a) and (b) of the Standing Orders. BEST argued that daily wagers are not entitled to increments and leave benefits until they are made permanent. The High Court, after hearing both sides, upheld the Industrial Court's order, finding that the denial of such benefits to daily wagers who were later regularized amounted to unfair labour practice under Item 9. The court reasoned that once employees are regularized, they cannot be denied the benefits of increments and leave for the period they worked as daily wagers, as it would be discriminatory. The petition was partly allowed, with the direction that the benefits be computed and paid within a specified period.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Item 9 Schedule IV - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Denial of increments and leave benefits to daily wagers from date of appointment till permanency constitutes unfair labour practice - The Industrial Court's order directing payment of increments and pro-rata privilege and sick leave under Standing Orders was upheld - Held that the employer cannot discriminate against daily wagers in matters of wages and leave once they are regularized (Paras 1-30).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court correctly held that the petitioner committed unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 by denying increments and leave benefits to daily wager complainants from the date of appointment till permanency.
Final Decision
The High Court partly allowed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order that the petitioner committed unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, and directing the petitioner to pay increments and grant privilege leave and sick leave on pro-rata basis as per Standing Orders, with a direction to compute and pay the benefits within a specified period.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Item 9 Schedule IV
- MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- daily wagers
- increments
- privilege leave
- sick leave
- pro-rata basis
- Standing Orders
- permanency
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (06) 105
WRIT PETITION NO. 744 OF 2021
Mr. S. C. Naidu, a/w Mr. Arsh Mishra and Mr. Raunak Shirsekar i/b Ashwin Ankhad & Asso., for the Petitioner. Mr. R. D. Bhat, for the Respondents.
The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST)
BEST JAGRUT KAMGAR SANGHATANA & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the Industrial Court's order declaring unfair labour practice and directing payment of increments and leave benefits to daily wagers.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the Industrial Court's order dated 17th October 2019.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contended that the Industrial Court erred in holding that denial of increments and leave benefits to daily wagers before permanency amounts to unfair labour practice.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court partly allowed the complaint in Complaint (ULP) No.183 of 2014 on 17th October 2019.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court correctly held that the petitioner committed unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 by denying increments and leave benefits to daily wager complainants from the date of appointment till permanency.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that daily wagers are not entitled to increments and leave benefits until they are made permanent.
Respondents argued that denial of such benefits to daily wagers who were later regularized amounts to unfair labour practice under Item 9.
Ratio Decidendi
Denial of increments and leave benefits to daily wagers from the date of appointment till the date of their permanency constitutes unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, as it discriminates against employees who are later regularized.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner - undertaking takes exception to a judgment and order dated 17th October, 2019 passed by the President, Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Mumbai, in Complaint (ULP) No.183 of 2014 whereby the complaint preferred by the respondents – complainants under Items 5 and 9 of the Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 came to be partly allowed declaring that the petitioner has committed unfair labour practices under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act, 1971 and directing the petitioner to pay inter alia increments to complainant Nos.2 to 18 from the date of appointment till the date of their permanency and grant privilege leave and sick leave on pro-rata basis as specified in Clause 4(2)(iii) @ (a) and (b) of the Standing Orders, if not already granted.
Procedural History
The respondents filed Complaint (ULP) No.183 of 2014 before the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Mumbai, under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The Industrial Court partly allowed the complaint on 17th October 2019. The petitioner challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No.744 of 2021 before the Bombay High Court, which was heard and disposed of on 5th June 2023.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Schedule IV, Items 5 and 9
