Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra and its officers (petitioners) filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Labour Court dated 25-8-2000 in Complaint (ULP) No.144 of 1997, which was upheld by the Industrial Court in Revision (ULP) No.233 of 2000 on 9-2-2001. The respondents, a union and eight individuals, were appointed as pharmacists by the petitioners at different times after their names were recommended by the Employment Exchange and after undergoing a selection process. Their services were terminated on 22-9-1998 on the ground that they were appointed in stretches of 29 days and thus were not entitled to continue indefinitely. Aggrieved, the respondents filed a complaint before the Labour Court alleging unfair labour practice. The Labour Court granted interim relief under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) on 30-10-1998. The petitioners challenged this interim order before the High Court, which initially directed absorption if posts were vacant on 7-9-1999, but a Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.148 of 1999 quashed the interim order on 1-2-2000. Consequently, the respondents were not reinstated during the pendency of the complaint. The Labour Court eventually allowed the complaint on 25-8-2000, holding the termination to be an unfair labour practice and directing reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The Industrial Court dismissed the revision on 9-2-2001. The High Court, in the present petition, examined the facts and found that the courts below had correctly applied the law. The High Court noted that the respondents were appointed through a proper selection process and their termination on the ground of 29-day stretches was unjustified. The High Court held that there was no perversity or error of law in the impugned orders and dismissed the petition, thereby upholding the reinstatement and back wages awarded to the respondents.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Termination of Daily-Wage Employees - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Sections 30(2) - The respondents, appointed as pharmacists after selection through Employment Exchange, were terminated on 22-9-1998 on the ground that they were appointed in stretches of 29 days. The Labour Court held this to be an unfair labour practice and ordered reinstatement with continuity and back wages. The Industrial Court dismissed the revision. The High Court upheld the orders, finding no perversity or error of law. (Paras 1-4)
B) Labour Law - Interim Relief - Section 30(2) MRTU & PULP Act - The Labour Court granted interim relief under Section 30(2) on 30-10-1998, which was initially stayed by the High Court but later quashed by a Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.148 of 1999 on 1-2-2000. The High Court in the present petition noted that the interim order was set aside, but the final order of the Labour Court remained undisturbed. (Paras 2-3)
C) Labour Law - Reinstatement and Back Wages - The Labour Court directed reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The High Court found no reason to interfere, as the courts below had correctly applied the law and the findings were based on evidence. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the respondents (pharmacists) who were appointed on a 29-day stretch basis constituted an unfair labour practice under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, and whether the Labour Court and Industrial Court correctly ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court. The respondents are entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- termination of daily-wage employees
- reinstatement with back wages
- MRTU & PULP Act
- Section 30(2) interim relief
- Letters Patent Appeal
- Labour Court jurisdiction
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 439
Writ Petition No.2487 of 2001
Shri D.B. Patel, AGP for Petitioners; Shri K.P. Marpakwar, Advocate for Respondents
The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Health, Mantralaya, Mumbai; The Commissioner, Employment State Insurance Scheme, Mumbai; Administrative Medical Officer, Employees State Insurance Scheme, Nagpur
Kamgar Rajya Vima Yojna Karmachari Sanghatana, Vidarbha Region, Nagpur, through its Secretary Ramesh B. Kale; Manoj Kumar Jagannath Wasnik; Shrikant Vasudeorao Deshpande; Ravindrakumar Pundalik Gajbhiye; Ku. Geeta Gunwantrao Wade; Vilas Gopalrao Chauragade; Vijay Girdhar Nimkar; Shyam Pandurang Bharate; Ajay Premchand Rai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition by the State challenging the order of the Labour Court and Industrial Court holding the petitioners guilty of unfair labour practice and directing reinstatement of the respondents with continuity of service and back wages.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (State) sought to quash the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court.
Filing Reason
The respondents' services were terminated on 22-9-1998 on the ground that they were appointed in stretches of 29 days and were not entitled to continue indefinitely.
Previous Decisions
The Labour Court granted interim relief under Section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act on 30-10-1998, which was initially challenged but later quashed by a Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.148 of 1999 on 1-2-2000. The Labour Court allowed the complaint on 25-8-2000, and the Industrial Court dismissed the revision on 9-2-2001.
Issues
Whether the termination of the respondents constituted an unfair labour practice under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Whether the Labour Court and Industrial Court correctly ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the respondents were appointed in stretches of 29 days and thus were not entitled to continue in service indefinitely.
The respondents contended that their termination was an unfair labour practice as they were appointed through a proper selection process.
Ratio Decidendi
The termination of employees appointed through a proper selection process on the ground of being appointed in short stretches (29 days) constitutes an unfair labour practice under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The Labour Court and Industrial Court correctly ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages, and the High Court found no perversity or error of law to interfere.
Judgment Excerpts
This petition by the State is directed against the order passed by the Labour Court on 25-8-2000 in Complaint (ULP) No.144 of 1997, left undisturbed by the Industrial Court in Revision (ULP) No.233 of 2000 by the order dated 9-2-2001, whereby the Courts below had held the petitioners guilty of unfair labour practice and had directed reinstatement of the respondents with continuity of service and back wages.
The respondents had been appointed by the petitioners as Pharmacists at different points of time after their names were recommended by the Employment Exchange and after subjecting them to a process of selection. Their services were terminated on 22-9-1998, since, according to the petitioners, the respondents were appointed in stretches of 29 days at a time and, therefore, were not entitled to continue in service indefinitely.
Procedural History
The respondents filed Complaint (ULP) No.144 of 1997 before the Labour Court. The Labour Court granted interim relief under Section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act on 30-10-1998. The petitioners challenged the interim order before the High Court, which initially directed absorption on 7-9-1999, but a Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.148 of 1999 quashed the interim order on 1-2-2000. The Labour Court allowed the complaint on 25-8-2000, ordering reinstatement with continuity and back wages. The petitioners filed Revision (ULP) No.233 of 2000 before the Industrial Court, which was dismissed on 9-2-2001. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Section 30(2)
