Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., a statutory body under the Indian Electricity Supply Act, 1948, challenged an order dated 29.04.1997 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Solapur. The respondents 1 to 3 were original complainants who had been engaged on rate contract basis as watchmen for six months from 09.02.1988, with clear terms that they would receive a monthly lump sum remuneration, the employer reserved the right of termination by giving one month's notice, and they would not be entitled to any permanency or preference in recruitment. The contract period was extended from time to time up to 03.01.1990. Before the expiry date, on 11.12.1989, the complainants filed separate complaints under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) in the Industrial Court at Solapur. Both parties led evidence on 18.12.1996, and on 29.04.1997, the Industrial Court passed the impugned order allowing the complaints, declaring that the respondent had committed unfair labour practices under Items 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, directing the respondent to cease and desist from such practices, to confer permanent status on the complainants as watchmen from the date of completion of 240 days work in the initial calendar year with monetary benefits, and to reinstate them with full backwages, declaring their termination w.e.f. 01.04.1990 as illegal and non-est. The High Court admitted the writ petition on 10.12.1997 and granted ad interim relief staying the enforcement of the order, which remained intact until the date of judgment.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Items 6, 9, 10 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act - Permanent Status - The Industrial Court declared that the employer committed unfair labour practices by engaging complainants on contract basis and terminating them without conferring permanent status after they completed 240 days of work in the initial calendar year. The court directed conferment of permanent status and reinstatement with full backwages. (Paras 1-3) B) Industrial Law - Contract Labour - Permanency - The respondents were engaged as watchmen on rate contract basis for six months with clear terms that they would not be entitled to permanency. However, the Industrial Court found that the complainants had completed 240 days of work and were entitled to permanent status, and their termination was illegal. (Paras 2-3) C) Industrial Law - Reinstatement - Backwages - The Industrial Court ordered reinstatement with full backwages upon finding that the termination of the complainants was illegal and non-est. The High Court admitted the writ petition and granted interim stay of the order. (Paras 1, 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in holding that the petitioner had committed unfair labour practices under Items 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act and in directing conferment of permanent status and reinstatement with full backwages to the respondents who were engaged as watchmen on contract basis.
Final Decision
The High Court admitted the writ petition and granted ad interim relief in terms of prayer (b), staying the enforcement of the Industrial Court order dated 29.04.1997. The matter was pending final disposal.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Items 6
- 9
- 10 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act
- permanent status
- completion of 240 days
- contract labour
- termination illegal
- reinstatement with backwages
