Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ petition filed by the State of Maharashtra challenging an order of the Industrial Court dated 04.08.2008 in Complaint (ULP) No. 263 of 2006. The respondent employee, Baliram Kawaduji Shivarhuke, had been employed on a Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) basis from 1980 and was terminated on 01.12.1987. He successfully challenged his termination in Complaint (ULP) No. 158 of 1987, and the Labour Court ordered his reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages on 27.06.1994. That judgment was not challenged further. Subsequently, the respondent filed a complaint before the Industrial Court alleging unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). He contended that under Clause 28 of the Kalelkar Settlement, he was entitled to be brought on the Converted Regular Temporary Establishment (CRTE) after completing five years of service, i.e., in 1985, but the petitioners failed to grant him that benefit. The Industrial Court accepted his grievance and directed the petitioners to bring him on CRTE from 1985 and pay all consequential benefits including difference in wages with 6% interest if not paid within one month. The State challenged this order before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court noted that the provisions of the Kalelkar Settlement were not in dispute and that the respondent had worked for five years on daily wages, thus satisfying the requirements. The Court held that the Industrial Court's order was just and proper, and dismissed the petition, upholding the direction to bring the respondent on CRTE from 1985 with consequential benefits and interest.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Kalelkar Settlement - Clause 28 - Converted Regular Temporary Establishment (CRTE) - Employee working on Nominal Muster Roll for five years is entitled to be brought on CRTE - Failure to do so amounts to unfair labour practice under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Industrial Court's order directing State to bring employee on CRTE from 1985 with consequential benefits and 6% interest upheld (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent employee, who was reinstated with continuity, is entitled to be brought on Converted Regular Temporary Establishment (CRTE) from 1985 under Clause 28 of the Kalelkar Settlement, and whether the failure to do so constitutes an unfair labour practice under the MRTU & PULP Act.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order dated 04.08.2008 directing the petitioners to bring the respondent on Converted Regular Temporary Establishment (CRTE) from 1985 and pay all consequential benefits including difference in wages with 6% interest if not paid within one month.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Kalelkar Settlement
- Converted Regular Temporary Establishment
- Nominal Muster Roll
- MRTU & PULP Act
- Schedule IV Items 5
- 6
- 9
- Reinstatement with continuity
- Back wages
- Interest
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (02) 25
WRIT PETITION NO. 2563 OF 2009
Shri Kothari, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the petitioners; Shri P.D. Naukarkar, Advocate for the respondent
The Secretary to Government, State of Maharashtra, P.W.D., Mantralaya, Mumbai; Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. Old Secretariat Building, Civil Lines, Nagpur; The Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Special Project, (Agricultural & Construction Division) Bungalow No.36, Civil Lines, Nagpur; Deputy Engineer, P.W.D. SubDivision, Parshivani
Shri Baliram Kawaduji Shivarhuke
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India challenging order of Industrial Court directing State to bring employee on CRTE.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (State) sought quashing of Industrial Court order dated 04.08.2008 in Complaint (ULP) No. 263 of 2006.
Filing Reason
Petitioners challenged Industrial Court order directing them to bring respondent on CRTE from 1985 with consequential benefits and interest.
Previous Decisions
Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 158 of 1987 ordered reinstatement of respondent with continuity and back wages on 27.06.1994, which was not challenged. Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 263 of 2006 directed petitioners to bring respondent on CRTE from 1985 with benefits.
Issues
Whether the respondent employee is entitled to be brought on CRTE from 1985 under Clause 28 of Kalelkar Settlement.
Whether failure to grant CRTE benefit amounts to unfair labour practice under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners (State) argued against the Industrial Court order.
Respondent argued that he was entitled to CRTE under Kalelkar Settlement after five years of service.
Ratio Decidendi
An employee who has worked for five years on Nominal Muster Roll is entitled to be brought on Converted Regular Temporary Establishment under Clause 28 of the Kalelkar Settlement. Failure to do so constitutes an unfair labour practice under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Industrial Court's order granting such relief is just and proper.
Judgment Excerpts
The provisions of Kalelkar Settlement are not in dispute. As per its scheme, every employee who was working for five years on daily wages is entitled to be given benefit thereof and the petitioner has accordingly worked on N.M.R. and he, therefore, satisfied its requirements.
Because of earlier understanding, the matter is to be disposed of finally in the order matters only.
Procedural History
Respondent was employed on NMR from 1980, terminated on 01.12.1987. He filed Complaint (ULP) No. 158 of 1987, which resulted in reinstatement with continuity and back wages on 27.06.1994 (not challenged). He then filed Complaint (ULP) No. 263 of 2006 before Industrial Court alleging unfair labour practice for not granting CRTE benefit under Kalelkar Settlement. Industrial Court allowed complaint on 04.08.2008. State filed Writ Petition No. 2563 of 2009 before Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was dismissed on 01.02.2010.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Schedule IV, Items 5, 6, 9
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
