Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ petition filed by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) challenging an order of the Industrial Court, Nagpur, which held the Corporation guilty of unfair labour practice under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (MRTU & PULP Act). The respondent, Deepak Shrikrishna Pandit, was employed as a driver with MSRTC. On 3 December 1997, he was assaulted by a motorcycle rider at Ghatkopar, Mumbai, suffering a fracture of the right upper arm, rendering him medically unfit to serve as a driver. Initially, MSRTC allowed him to work as a Traffic Controller, but on 21 July 1999, asked him to resume driving duties. The respondent filed a complaint before the Industrial Court, which granted an interim order permitting him to work as Traffic Controller. Subsequently, on 31 May 2002, MSRTC terminated his services effective 14 February 2002, after he was declared medically unfit. On 7 June 2002, MSRTC offered him the post of peon as alternate employment but without pay protection. The Industrial Court passed the impugned order directing MSRTC to provide alternate employment in the post of Traffic Controller by way of recategorisation, or if not possible, any other suitable post including peon, while protecting the wages last drawn by the respondent as driver. MSRTC challenged this order, arguing that the respondent lacked the minimum qualification of XII standard for Traffic Controller, and that the settlement did not provide for pay protection. The High Court upheld the Industrial Court's order, noting that the settlement under Demand No.46 for the period 1996-2000 required the Corporation to provide alternate employment to employees who acquire physical disablement while discharging duties. The court found that the Industrial Court's direction to protect wages was justified to prevent unfair labour practice, as the employer's offer of peon post without pay protection was insufficient. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Alternate Employment - Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The employer was held guilty of unfair labour practice for terminating a driver who became medically unfit due to injuries sustained in an assault, without providing suitable alternate employment with pay protection. The Industrial Court's order directing the employer to provide alternate employment in the post of Traffic Controller or any other suitable post including peon, with protection of last drawn wages, was upheld. (Paras 1-4) B) Industrial Law - Settlement - Pay Protection - Demand No.46 of Settlement dated 01.04.1996 to 31.03.2000 - The settlement provided for alternate employment to employees who acquire physical disablement while discharging duties. The court held that the settlement does not preclude pay protection, and the employer's offer of peon post without pay protection was insufficient. The Industrial Court's direction to protect wages was justified to prevent unfair labour practice. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in directing the employer to provide alternate employment with pay protection to an employee declared medically unfit for his original post, and whether such direction constitutes unfair labour practice under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order directing the petitioners to provide alternate employment to the respondent in the post of Traffic Controller by way of recategorisation, or if not possible, any other suitable post including peon, with protection of wages last drawn as driver.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Alternate employment
- Pay protection
- Medical unfitness
- MRTU & PULP Act
- Schedule IV Items 5 and 9
- Settlement agreement
