Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ichalkaranji Municipal Council, challenged the order of the Industrial Court dated 22.7.1998 which allowed the complaint filed by Respondent No.1, Praveen Shivgonda Patil. The respondent was appointed as a Deputy Engineer on a work charged basis on 2.3.1987 after his name was forwarded by the employment exchange. He worked continuously for more than 3 years but was not made permanent. He filed a complaint alleging unfair labour practices under Items 6, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, contending that he was a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that permanent posts were available. The petitioner denied that the respondent was a workman, claiming his duties were supervisory, and argued that work charged employees have no right to permanency. The Industrial Court allowed the complaint, declaring unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9, and directed permanency with consequential benefits. The High Court upheld the order, finding that the respondent was a workman and that the petitioner's failure to make him permanent despite continuous work and available posts constituted unfair labour practice.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Permanency - Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) - The Industrial Court allowed the complaint of the respondent, a Deputy Engineer appointed on work charged basis, declaring that the petitioner Municipal Council committed unfair labour practice by not making him permanent despite working for more than 3 years and availability of permanent posts. The High Court upheld the order, finding that the respondent was a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the petitioner's actions fell under Items 6 and 9. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent, a Deputy Engineer appointed on work charged basis, is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether the petitioner committed unfair labour practices under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 by not making him permanent.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Industrial Court order dated 22.7.1998, which declared unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act and directed the petitioner to make the respondent permanent in service with consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Workman definition under Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Section 2(s)
- Unfair labour practices under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Permanency for work charged employees
- Nature of work and availability of permanent posts
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (08) 44
Writ Petition No.4261 of 1998
Mr. T.S. Ingale for Petitioner, Mr. Umesh Desai for Respondent No.1
Ichalkaranji Municipal Council
Praveen Shivgonda Patil & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Industrial Court allowing a complaint of unfair labour practice and directing permanency.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (Municipal Council) sought to quash the Industrial Court order dated 22.7.1998 which declared unfair labour practice and directed permanency for the respondent.
Filing Reason
The respondent filed a complaint alleging unfair labour practices under Items 6, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act for not being made permanent despite working for more than 3 years.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court allowed the complaint on 22.7.1998, declaring unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 and directing permanency with consequential benefits.
Issues
Whether the respondent is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Whether the petitioner committed unfair labour practices under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 by not making the respondent permanent?
Submissions/Arguments
The respondent argued that he was a workman, had worked continuously for more than 3 years, and permanent posts were available, so the petitioner's failure to make him permanent constituted unfair labour practice.
The petitioner argued that the respondent was not a workman as his duties were supervisory, and that work charged employees have no right to permanency.
Ratio Decidendi
A Deputy Engineer appointed on work charged basis who performs work of a permanent nature and has worked continuously for more than 3 years is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The employer's failure to make such employee permanent despite availability of permanent posts amounts to unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Judgment Excerpts
The Industrial Court has declared that the petitioner had committed an unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.
The petitioner has been directed to make the respondent permanent in service and to give him consequential benefits of permanency.
Procedural History
The respondent filed a complaint before the Industrial Court alleging unfair labour practices. The Industrial Court allowed the complaint on 22.7.1998. The petitioner challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No.4261 of 1998 before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 12.8.2010.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act): Schedule IV, Items 6, 9, 10
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(s)
