Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Hinganghat, challenged the order of the Industrial Court, Nagpur, which allowed the complaint of respondent No.1, Vitthal Dashrath Nimsade, alleging unfair labour practice 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). Respondent No.1, born on 17-01-1949 and claiming to belong to Scheduled Tribe, was appointed as a Peon on daily wages by the petitioner-committee around 1980-81. He was transferred multiple times, and on 04-07-1995, he was transferred to Samudrapur. On 19-08-1992, he filed a complaint before the Industrial Court alleging that his services were not regularized despite completing 240 days of continuous service, while his juniors Arun Mankar, Gajanan Bhosale and Prakash Lambe, who were relatives of office bearers, were regularized. The petitioner-committee contended that there was no favouritism, as the juniors were registered with the Employment Exchange and within age limit, while respondent No.1 was age-barred. The Industrial Court, after considering evidence, held that unfair labour practice was established and directed the petitioner-committee to regularize respondent No.1's services. The High Court, in this writ petition, examined whether the Industrial Court's order was sustainable. The court noted that there was no dispute that respondent No.1 had completed 240 days of continuous service. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that Model Standing Orders were not applicable, as the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 applies to industrial establishments. The court also rejected the age bar and Employment Exchange registration defences, as the Model Standing Orders did not prescribe such conditions for regularization. The court found that the regularization of juniors while denying the same to respondent No.1 constituted unfair labour practice under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV. The High Court upheld the Industrial Court's order, dismissing the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Regularization of Daily Wager - Items 5, 6, 9 of Schedule IV, MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Model Standing Orders under Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 - The Industrial Court found that the petitioner-committee engaged in unfair labour practice by not regularizing respondent No.1, a daily wager who had completed 240 days of continuous service, while regularizing juniors who were relatives of office bearers. The court held that the Model Standing Orders were applicable and that the petitioner's action amounted to unfair labour practice. (Paras 1-6) B) Industrial Law - Regularization - Age Bar - Employment Exchange Registration - The petitioner's defence that respondent No.1 was age-barred and not registered with Employment Exchange was rejected as the Model Standing Orders did not prescribe such conditions for regularization. The court held that the regularization of juniors without such conditions demonstrated discrimination. (Paras 5-6) C) Industrial Law - Transfer - Bifurcation of Committee - Liability - The bifurcation of the original committee into petitioner and respondent No.3 did not absolve the petitioner of liability, as respondent No.1 had worked with both committees and the complaint was filed before bifurcation. The Industrial Court directed the petitioner to regularize respondent No.1's services. (Paras 3, 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was correct in holding that the petitioner-committee engaged in unfair labour practice under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act by not regularizing the services of respondent No.1 despite his completion of 240 days of continuous service and regularization of juniors.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order directing the petitioner-committee to regularize the services of respondent No.1.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Regularization of daily wager
- Model Standing Orders
- Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act
- 1946
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act
- 1971
- Schedule IV Items 5
- 6
- 9
- Age bar
- Employment Exchange registration
