Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two writ petitions filed by employees against the Wardha District Cooperative Agricultural, Rural and Multipurpose Development Bank Limited. The petitioners were selected and appointed as clerks on a temporary basis for one year by orders dated 13.06.1991. However, on 21.12.1991, the respondent Bank cancelled their appointment orders, effective 23.12.1991. The petitioners did not challenge the cancellation. In 1996, they approached the Industrial Court with complaints alleging unfair labour practices under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The employer denied the allegations, asserting that the petitioners had not completed 240 days of continuous service and were therefore not entitled to relief. The Industrial Court, after considering evidence, dismissed the complaints. The High Court, hearing the petitions, noted that the petitioners had not challenged the cancellation order and that the Industrial Court had found that the petitioners had not completed 240 days of continuous service. The High Court upheld the Industrial Court's decision, dismissing the petitions.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Temporary Appointment - Cancellation - Continuous Service - The petitioners were appointed temporarily for one year but their appointments were cancelled before they completed 240 days of continuous service. The Industrial Court dismissed their complaints, holding that they had not completed 240 days of continuous service and thus were not entitled to relief. The High Court upheld this finding, noting that the petitioners did not challenge the cancellation order and the evidence showed they had not worked for 240 days. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the complaints of unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, on the ground that the petitioners had not completed 240 days of continuous service.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the Industrial Court's order.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV
- MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- continuous service
- 240 days
- temporary appointment
- cancellation of appointment
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 373
Writ Petition No. 3546 of 2001 with Writ Petition No. 3549 of 2001
Shri S.N. Dandekar for Petitioner, Shri P.D. Meghe for Respondent
Rajendra S/o. Panjabrao Hore and Mukesh Yadaorao Ghodmare
Wardha District Cooperative Agricultural, Rural and Multipurpose Development Bank Limited, Wardha
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging the dismissal of complaints of unfair labour practice by the Industrial Court.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to set aside the Industrial Court's order dismissing their complaints and sought relief against alleged unfair labour practices.
Filing Reason
The petitioners alleged that the respondent Bank engaged in unfair labour practices by cancelling their temporary appointments without cause and failing to continue their employment.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court dismissed the complaints on the ground that the petitioners had not completed 240 days of continuous service.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the complaints of unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Whether the petitioners had completed 240 days of continuous service entitling them to relief.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that their appointments were cancelled arbitrarily and that they had completed 240 days of continuous service.
The respondent Bank argued that the petitioners had not completed 240 days of continuous service and were not entitled to relief.
Ratio Decidendi
The Industrial Court's finding that the petitioners had not completed 240 days of continuous service was not perverse and was based on evidence. The petitioners did not challenge the cancellation order and the evidence showed they had not worked for 240 days. Therefore, the complaints of unfair labour practice were rightly dismissed.
Judgment Excerpts
These two petitions by employees are directed against judgment delivered by learned Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur on 10th September, 2001 dismissing their complaints about unfair labour practice as described in Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
The facts, which are material for deciding these petitions, and about which mostly there is no dispute, are as under : The respondent Bank had selected petitioners in the two petitions along with three other candidates for being appointed as clerks. They came to be appointed by orders dated 13.06.1991 on a temporary basis for a period of one year on certain terms and conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners resumed their duties with the respondent Bank. However, on 21st December, 1991 the respondent informed the petitioners that their appointment order has been cancelled and that their appointment would come to an end on 23rd December, 1991. The petitioners did not challenge the cancellation of order dated 13.06.1991. However, when even in 1996 i.e. after five years, they found that they did not continue with the employment, they approached Industrial Court with the complaint in respect of Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.
Procedural History
The petitioners were appointed on 13.06.1991 on a temporary basis for one year. Their appointments were cancelled on 21.12.1991, effective 23.12.1991. They did not challenge the cancellation. In 1996, they filed complaints before the Industrial Court alleging unfair labour practices. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaints on 10.09.2001. The petitioners then filed the present writ petitions in 2001.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Schedule IV, Items 6 and 9
