Case Note & Summary
The writ petition before the Bombay High Court arose from an order passed by the Industrial Court at Kolhapur in a complaint of unfair labour practice filed by daily-wage workers of a sugar factory under the Maharashtra Regulation of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The workers, initially appointed on daily wages, claimed to have been continuously working in the sugar factory and demanded permanent status. Following a demand by their union and negotiations, a settlement was reached on 16 February 2015, under which permanent or seasonal permanent status was granted to the workers, and office orders dated 5 November 2015 were issued. Subsequently, the factory management changed, and under directions from the Commissioner of Sugar and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the new management sought to withdraw the permanent status. The workers approached the Industrial Court alleging unfair labour practices under Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act. The Industrial Court partly allowed the complaint, holding that the settlement was binding and any unilateral withdrawal constituted unfair labour practice under Item 9. It directed the sugar factory to cease and desist from withdrawing the office orders, to pay all consequential benefits, and to not terminate services without following due process. The sugar factory challenged this order in the writ petition, raising grounds that the initial appointments were back-door entries, that the grant of permanency breached the sanctioned staffing pattern under Section 79AA of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, that the change effectuated by the settlement required a notice under Section 42(1) of the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946, and that the agreement could not be implemented without a further board resolution. The High Court, in its oral judgment, examined these contentions. It noted that the Industrial Court had found the complaint maintainable and had rejected the objection that the relief was akin to Item 1 of Schedule IV. On staffing pattern, the Industrial Court had held that the applicable pattern was of 1993, not 2004, and that appointments were within the sanctioned strength. The Industrial Court had also held that the settlement was binding and could not be challenged before an industrial adjudicator outside the ambit of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The High Court observed that there was no material before the Industrial Court to show the initial appointments were illegal, and that the method of appointment was an internal matter of the factory. The judgment excerpt ends abruptly, and no final decision of the High Court on the writ petition is recorded in the available text; accordingly, the ultimate outcome of the petition is not mentioned.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Item 9, Schedule IV, MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court held that the sugar factory's breach of the settlement and office orders granting permanent status to workers amounted to an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV, as the agreement was binding under Section 42 of the MIR Act and could not be unilaterally rescinded. Held that any action in breach constituted an unfair practice (Paras 4-5). B) Industrial Dispute - Maintainability of Complaint - MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court held the complaint maintainable, rejecting the objection that the relief sought was essentially directions not to terminate services under Item 1 of Schedule IV. Held that the primary grievance involved breach of statutory provisions and service conditions, and protection from termination was merely incidental (Para 4). C) Co-operative Society - Staffing Pattern - Section 79AA, Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act - The Industrial Court found that the applicable staffing pattern was of 1993, not 2004, and the appointments were within the sanctioned strength. Held that there was no breach of staffing norms and the challenge to the earlier board's resolution could not be adjudicated in an industrial forum (Paras 4, 6). D) Industrial Law - Binding Effect of Settlement - Section 42, Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946 - The Industrial Court held that the settlement dated 16 February 2015 between the union and management was binding and could not be resiled from without following due procedure under Section 42, MIR Act. Held that the sugar factory's argument that the resolution was illegal was outside the scope of industrial adjudication (Paras 4-5). E) Employment - Legality of Appointments - The High Court observed that there was no material to show initial daily-wage appointments were illegal and the method of appointment by 'chits' was an internal matter of the factory. The court noted that without evidence, it was futile to object to the appointments (Para 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court's order was correct in holding that the sugar factory committed unfair labour practice under Item 9 and directing not to withdraw office orders granting permanent status; whether the grant of permanent status based on a settlement was valid and binding; whether the staffing pattern was breached; whether the change required notice under Section 42(1) of MIR Act
Law Points
- binding nature of settlement under Section 42 of Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act
- 1946
- unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- staffing pattern under Section 79AA of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act
- maintainability of complaint under Items 5
- 9
- 10 of Schedule IV
