Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court, by judgment dated September 12, 2023, dismissed two writ petitions filed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nashik, challenging concurrent orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court that directed reinstatement of two Muster Assistants without back wages. The petitions were filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The dispute concerned termination of services of Balu Baburao Dhanwate (appointed on May 7, 1983, terminated on October 11, 1986) and Dadasaheb Gangadhar Shete (appointed on March 14, 1983, terminated on September 13, 1986) from the post of Muster Assistant under the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS). The Labour Court had earlier decided complaints filed under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, alleging unfair labour practices under Item 1(a), (b), (d), (f), and (g) of Schedule IV, finding that the workmen were covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that their termination violated Sections 25F and 25G. The Labour Court directed reinstatement with continuity of service from the date of termination but without back wages. The Industrial Court upheld that decision. Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that the respondents were temporary employees under EGS, engaged for specific works with breaks, and therefore no employer-employee relationship existed; that EGS was a State Government scheme for rural unskilled workers, and the petitioners were merely an implementing agency; that the respondents failed to prove 240 days of continuous service; and that the Government Resolution dated December 1, 1995, concerning absorption of Muster Assistants, could not apply retrospectively. The respondents contended that the Labour Court had correctly held that the work performed was clerical and permanent in nature, not seasonal EGS work; that a certificate issued by the petitioners' officer showed the respondents were never engaged under EGS; and that the implementing agency argument was rejected in Divisional Manager, Division Wanprakalpa Office (W) Forest Development Corporation Nashik v. Chimna Arjun Jadhav, 2001 (4) Mh.L.J. 97. The High Court found that the Labour Court had returned categorical findings that the respondents were workmen under Section 2(s) and that the Zilla Parishad was an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It noted that these findings were based on oral evidence showing continuous service of more than 240 days in each calendar year, and therefore the case cited by the petitioners, Shri Asaram N. Patil v. Zilla Parishad, was distinguishable. The court further accepted that the implementing agency status did not alter the jural relationship of employer and employee. Consequently, the High Court saw no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The writ petitions were dismissed, thereby upholding the reinstatement orders without back wages.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction under Article 227 - Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court over Labour Court and Industrial Court - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 227 - Petitioners challenged concurrent findings of Labour Court and Industrial Court in writ petitions; High Court examined whether lower courts committed jurisdictional error or perversity; it found categorical findings supported by evidence and no ground for interference. Held that writ jurisdiction is supervisory and not appellate, and concurrent findings of fact based on evidence would not be disturbed. (Paras 1, 8) B) Industrial Law - Definition of Workman and Industry - Complainant proved to be workman within Section 2(s) and respondent is industry under Section 2(j) - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 2(s), 2(j) - Labour Court returned affirmative findings that complainants were workmen and Zilla Parishad is an industry; Industrial Court upheld; High Court noted these categorical findings. Held that these findings were based on evidence and not perverse. (Paras 8-9) C) Industrial Law - Retrenchment and Conditions Precedent - Termination without complying with Sections 25F and 25G renders termination illegal - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 25F, 25G - Complainants appointed in 1983 and terminated in 1986 without notice or compensation despite availability of work; Labour Court and Industrial Court held termination in violation of statutory conditions; High Court upheld, directing reinstatement without back wages. Held that employers must comply with mandatory provisions before retrenchment. (Paras 3.1-3.2, 3.5, 8) D) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practices - Termination in breach of Item 1(a),(b),(d),(f),(g) of Schedule IV - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Schedule IV Item 1(a),(b),(d),(f),(g) - Complaints alleged engagement in unfair labour practices by abrupt termination; Labour Court found practices proved; Industrial Court upheld; High Court found no reason to interfere. Held that failure to comply with statutory provisions and abrupt termination constituted unfair labour practice. (Paras 3.3-3.5, 8) E) Labour Law - Employer-Employee Relationship and Implementing Agency - Jural relationship of employer and employee exists even when entity acts as implementing agency for State scheme - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Petitioners argued no employer-employee relationship because they were implementing agency under EGS; court relied on Divisional Manager, Division Wanprakalpa Office (W) Forest Development Corporation Nashik v. Chimna Arjun Jadhav, 2001 (4) Mh.L.J. 97, holding that implementing agency status does not alter jural relationship. Held that complainants were engaged by petitioners and employer-employee relationship subsisted. (Paras 6, 7.2) F) Evidence - Proof of Continuous Service of 240 Days - Oral evidence of work for more than 240 days in each calendar year sufficient - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Petitioners contended complainants failed to prove 240 days continuous service; Labour Court based on oral evidence found continuous service; High Court distinguished Shri Asaram N. Patil v. Zilla Parishad where no such evidence existed. Held that in present case evidence established continuous service, so protection under Act applicable. (Paras 6.1, 8) G) Service Law - Regularisation and Government Resolution - Government Resolution dated 01.12.1995 for absorption of Muster Assistants not applicable retrospectively - Maharashtra Government Resolution dated 01.12.1995 - Petitioners argued GR not applicable because complainants were not in employment beyond 1986; Labour Court held Muster Assistant work was permanent clerical and not part of EGS, making GR irrelevant for determining status. Held that since termination occurred in 1986 and employment was not under EGS, the GR had no bearing and could not be used to deny relief. (Paras 6, 7.3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Labour Court and Industrial Court correctly held that respondents were workmen under Section 2(s), that Zilla Parishad is an industry under Section 2(j), that termination violated Sections 25F and 25G of Industrial Disputes Act and amounted to unfair labour practice under Item 1(a),(b),(d),(f),(g) of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act, entitling reinstatement without back wages.
Final Decision
Writ petitions dismissed; judgment and order of Industrial Court dated 01.11.2001 and Labour Court dated 05.08.2000 confirmed; respondents entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service from date of termination without back wages.
Law Points
- Article 227 jurisdiction is supervisory
- not appellate
- Section 25F and 25G of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 require compliance before retrenchment
- Workman and industry under Sections 2(s) and 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Item 1(a)
- (b)
- (d)
- (f)
- (g) of Schedule IV MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Employer-employee relationship exists even if implementing agency for EGS
- Government Resolution dated 01.12.1995 not applicable retrospectively
- Continuous service of 240 days proved by oral evidence
