Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, heard a batch of five writ petitions filed by around sixty employees of Municipal Council, Mul, challenging orders of regularization that imposed conditions denying continuity, seniority, pay fixation, and dearness allowance. The petitioners had been engaged as Junior Clerks, Peons, and Labourers on daily wages. They sought absorption after long continuous service and filed complaints under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 before the Industrial Court, Nagpur. By a common judgment dated 29.11.1991, the Industrial Court allowed all complaints, declared that the Municipal Council had engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV, and directed regularization of services from the date each complainant completed 240 days of service. The Municipal Council's writ petition against that order was dismissed for want of prosecution on 04.04.2005, and the Industrial Court's order attained finality. Subsequently, the Urban Development Department instructed the Director of Municipal Administration to implement the order, and the Director issued regularization orders on 12.12.2008 for eighteen employees and on 03.05.2011 for the remaining forty-two employees. However, these orders imposed conditions: services rendered on vacant posts would count for pension only from absorption; employees would not be entitled to continuity, seniority, promotion, or increments for five years; and no dearness allowance would be paid for five years, though the Municipal Council could pay it from its own funds. Petitioners made representations against these conditions, and the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council recommended withdrawal of the conditions on 28.02.2017, but the State Government refused on 13.09.2017. The petitioners then filed the present writ petitions challenging the conditions. The court heard counsel for the petitioners and the State, issued Rule, and made it returnable forthwith. The primary legal issue was whether the regularization orders could impose conditions contrary to the final Industrial Court direction. The court noted the Industrial Court's order and the subsequent dismissal of the challenge, and was called upon to decide the validity of the conditions. The extract provided ends before the court's analysis and final decision, so no holding is available.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practices - Regularization of Daily Wage Employees - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Section 28, Schedule IV Items 6 and 9 - Industrial Court allowed complaints and directed regularization of services from the date of completion of 240 days - Writ petition against that order was dismissed for want of prosecution, making the direction final and binding - Court was called upon to decide whether subsequent regularization orders imposing conditions on continuity, seniority, pay fixation, and dearness allowance were permissible (Paras 3-5).
B) Service Law - Conditions on Regularization - Continuity, Seniority, Promotion, Increments, Dearness Allowance - Director of Municipal Administration orders dated 12.12.2008 and 03.05.2011 - Petitioners challenged conditions denying service benefits for five years despite Industrial Court's direction to regularize from initial 240 days - Court was considering validity of the conditions in light of the finality of the Industrial Court order (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether conditions imposed by Director of Municipal Administration while regularizing services of employees, denying continuity, seniority, promotion, increments and dearness allowance for five years, were valid despite Industrial Court's direction to regularize from date of completing 240 days.
Law Points
- Regularization
- unfair labour practices
- continuity of service
- seniority
- pay fixation
- dearness allowance
- finality of Industrial Court orders
- MRTU & PULP Act Section 28
- Schedule IV Items 6 and 9
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (01) 100
WRIT PETITION (WP) NO. 5355/2019 along with WP Nos. 5354/2019, 5356/2019, 7567/2019 and 7573/2019
A. S. Chandurkar, Smt. M.S. Jawalkar
Shri A.M. Ghare, Advocate for the petitioners in WP Nos. 5355, 5354 & 5356 of 2019; Shri R.R. Dawda, Advocate for the petitioners in WP Nos. 7573 & 7567 of 2019; Ms. Kalyani R. Deshpande, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2 /State in all petitions; Ms. Kirti Satpute with Shri Aditya Satpute, Advocates for respondent no. 3 in all petitions
Ayubkhan Dildarkhan Pathan and 20 others (WP 5355/2019); Siddharth Yashwant Bambodakar and 17 others (WP 5354/2019); Suresh Yanbayaji Saddamwar and 7 others (WP 5356/2019); Madhuri Anil Dahiwale and 3 others (WP 7567/2019); Sakhubai W/o. Dadaji Tingsule and 4 others (WP 7573/2019)
State of Maharashtra through its Secretary Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai; The Commissioner and Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration, Government Transport Services Building, 3rd Floor, Sir Pochakhanwala Road, Worli, Mumbai; The Chief Officer, Municipal Council Mul, District Chandrapur.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging orders of regularization imposing conditions on service benefits
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of conditions imposed in regularization orders dated 12.12.2008 and 03.05.2011 and grant of continuity, seniority, pay fixation, and other benefits as per Industrial Court direction
Filing Reason
Conditions imposed by Director of Municipal Administration while regularizing services denied continuity, seniority, promotion, increments and dearness allowance for five years despite Industrial Court order directing regularization from completion of 240 days
Previous Decisions
Industrial Court allowed complaints under MRTU & PULP Act on 29.11.1991 directing regularization from date of completion of 240 days; Writ Petition No. 391/1992 challenging that order dismissed for want of prosecution on 04.04.2005; regularization orders issued on 12.12.2008 and 03.05.2011 with conditions; Chief Officer's request to withdraw conditions turned down on 13.09.2017
Issues
Whether the conditions imposed in regularization orders dated 12.12.2008 and 03.05.2011, denying continuity, seniority, promotion, increments and dearness allowance for five years, were valid in light of the Industrial Court's direction to regularize services from the date of completion of 240 days.
Whether the regularization orders should be quashed to the extent they imposed conditions contrary to the final and binding order of the Industrial Court.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners, regularized employees, contended that the conditions were contrary to Industrial Court direction and had made representations against them; Chief Officer of Municipal Council also recommended withdrawal of conditions but State Government refused.
Judgment Excerpts
The Complaints (ULPN) Nos. 133, 291 to 293, 608 and 653 all of 1990 are allowed. It is declared that the respondent has engaged in unfair labour practice as envisaged in Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The respondent is directed to cease and desist from practicing the said unfair labour practice. The respondent is further directed to regularise the services of the complainants from the date they completed 240 days of their service, from the date of their appointment.
The conditions imposed were that the services rendered on vacant post would be taken into consideration for the purpose of pensionary benefits from the date of such absorption. However, the concerned employees were held not entitled to any service benefits in the form of continuity, seniority, promotion and increments for a period of five years. Such note was directed to be taken in their service books. Another condition imposed was that for a period of five years from the date of absorption, the said employees would not be entitled to any dearness allowance.
Procedural History
Industrial Court, Nagpur allowed complaints under Section 28 of MRTU & PULP Act on 29.11.1991, directing regularization from completion of 240 days; Municipal Council's Writ Petition No. 391/1992 dismissed for want of prosecution on 04.04.2005; Urban Development Department communication on 20.10.2008 to Director of Municipal Administration; Director issued regularization order for 18 employees on 12.12.2008 subject to conditions; similar order for 42 employees on 03.05.2011; petitioners made representations; Chief Officer requested withdrawal on 28.02.2017; State Government refused on 13.09.2017; petitioners filed writ petitions in 2019; court heard and reserved judgment on 27.01.2022.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Section 28, Schedule IV Items 6 and 9
