Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra, through the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Pune, filed a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment dated 23.10.2008 of the Industrial Court, Kolhapur in Complaint (ULP) No.310 of 1999. The Industrial Court had partly allowed the complaint filed by Sunil Shankarrao Sanagar and others (daily wagers) and directed the State to engage/employ them in accordance with their seniority and exigencies of work, and also to consider their cases and bring them/appoint them on converted regular temporary establishment as per the terms of the Kalelkar Settlement Award. The State argued that the Industrial Court's order was perverse and illegal. However, the High Court, after hearing both sides, found no perversity or illegality in the Industrial Court's findings. The High Court noted that the State did not challenge the applicability of the Kalelkar Settlement Award. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and also disposed of the Civil Application No.381 of 2019 filed by Ravindra Dashrath Torase and others for intervention, as the main petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practices - Daily Wagers - Engagement and Regularisation - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Item 6 of Schedule IV - The Industrial Court directed the State to engage daily wager complainants as per seniority and exigencies of work and to consider their cases for appointment on converted regular temporary establishment as per Kalelkar Settlement Award. The High Court upheld the order, finding no perversity or illegality. (Paras 1-3)
B) Industrial Law - Kalelkar Settlement Award - Applicability - The Industrial Court's direction to consider complainants' cases for appointment on converted regular temporary establishment as per Kalelkar Settlement Award was upheld, as the State did not challenge the applicability of the Award. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court's order directing the State to engage daily wager complainants in accordance with seniority and to consider their cases for appointment on converted regular temporary establishment as per Kalelkar Settlement Award was perverse or illegal.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and disposed of Civil Application No.381 of 2019.
Law Points
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act
- 1971
- Unfair Labour Practices
- Daily Wagers
- Regularisation
- Kalelkar Settlement Award
- Seniority
- Exigencies of Work
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (12) 140
Writ Petition No.1665 of 2009
Mr. A. P. Vanarase, AGP for the Petitioners/State, Mr. G. N. Salunke a/w V. S. Kokitkar, for the Respondents
The State of Maharashtra through The Executive Engineer & Anr.
Sunil Shankarrao Sanagar & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment of the Industrial Court in a complaint alleging unfair labour practices.
Remedy Sought
The State of Maharashtra sought to quash the Industrial Court's order directing engagement of daily wagers as per seniority and consideration for regularisation under Kalelkar Settlement Award.
Filing Reason
The State was aggrieved by the Industrial Court's judgment dated 23.10.2008 in Complaint (ULP) No.310 of 1999.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court, Kolhapur allowed the complaint partly and directed the State to engage the complainants as per seniority and to consider their cases for appointment on converted regular temporary establishment as per Kalelkar Settlement Award.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court's order directing engagement of daily wagers as per seniority and consideration for regularisation under Kalelkar Settlement Award was perverse or illegal.
Submissions/Arguments
Mr. Vanarase, AGP for the State, argued that the Industrial Court's order was perverse and illegal.
Mr. Salunke for the respondents supported the Industrial Court's order.
Ratio Decidendi
The Industrial Court's findings were not perverse or illegal; the State did not challenge the applicability of the Kalelkar Settlement Award; hence, the order directing engagement as per seniority and consideration for regularisation was upheld.
Judgment Excerpts
This Writ Petition is filed under the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the State of Maharashtra through Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Pune taking exception to the judgment dated 23.10.2008 passed by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur in Complaint (ULP) No.310 of 1999.
By the said impugned judgment, the Industrial Court has allowed the complaint partly and directed the Petitioners to engage/employ the original complainants in accordance with their seniority and exigencies of work and also to consider their cases and bring them/appoint them on converted regular temporary establishment as per the terms of Kalelkar Settlement Award.
After hearing Mr. Vanarase and Mr. Salunke, I find that there is no perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the Industrial Court.
Procedural History
The Industrial Court, Kolhapur passed judgment on 23.10.2008 in Complaint (ULP) No.310 of 1999. The State filed Writ Petition No.1665 of 2009 in the High Court of Bombay challenging that judgment. Civil Application No.381 of 2019 was filed by Ravindra Dashrath Torase and others for intervention. The High Court heard the matter and dismissed the Writ Petition on 11.12.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971:
