Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad dealt with two writ petitions filed by the Vice Chancellor and the Principal of an agricultural college challenging orders of the Industrial Court that had directed absorption of daily wage workers into permanent service with all benefits. The workers, Ashok Khandu Saidane and Rumal Chindha More, had filed complaints under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, alleging that they had been employed as daily wagers for over ten years in plantation and cultivation work and were denied permanency and privileges of permanent workmen, constituting an unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV. The employer contended that the workers were only casual, the work was seasonal, there was no continuous employment for twelve months, and no vacant permanent posts existed. The Industrial Court allowed the complaints and directed payment of wages at par with permanent employees along with all benefits and payment of difference from the filing date. During pendency of the petitions, Ashok Saindane was made permanent in 2004, partially satisfying his claim, while Rumal More died in 2000 and his legal representatives were substituted. The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Mahatma Phule Agricultural University case (2001 III CLR 4), held that status of permanency could not be granted in the absence of vacant posts and that the Industrial Court's reasoning based on Item 6 of Schedule IV could not be sustained. However, the principle of equal pay for equal work entitled the workers to receive wages at par with permanent employees as directed by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the petitions were partly allowed: the direction for permanency and difference wages was set aside, but the employer was directed to extend monetary benefits in line with the Supreme Court's directions, and the legal representatives of the deceased worker were not entitled to any post-death benefits.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practices - Item 6 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Permanency cannot be granted where no permanent posts available - Supreme Court held that inaction of State Government to create posts does not amount to an unfair labour practice by the Universities and status of permanency cannot be granted (Paras 7-8). B) Labour Law - Equal Pay for Equal Work - Principle of equal pay for equal work applied to daily wage workers similarly situated - Workers entitled to monetary benefits as per Apex Court directions, not status of permanency - Held that the Industrial Court's direction to grant benefits of permanent establishment was set aside, but monetary benefits must be given in accordance with Supreme Court's directions in Mahatma Phule Agricultural University case (Paras 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether daily wage workers are entitled to status of permanency and benefits of permanent workmen under the MRTU and PULP Act in the absence of vacant permanent posts, and whether the Industrial Court's direction is valid in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Mahatma Phule Agricultural University.
Final Decision
The petitions were partly allowed. The direction of the Industrial Court to grant benefits and privileges of permanent establishment and payment of difference of wages was set aside. However, the petitioners were directed to give monetary benefits in accordance with the Supreme Court's directions in Mahatma Phule Agricultural University case, as per the claims that could have been received like others who were granted benefits under that dictum, if not already paid. The legal representatives of deceased Rumal More were not entitled to further benefits from the date of his death.
Law Points
- permanency cannot be granted without permanent posts
- equal pay for equal work
- Item 6 Schedule IV MRTU and PULP Act unfair labour practice
