Case Note & Summary
The Petitioners, Suresh R. Kandut and another, filed a Writ Petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the Judgment and Order dated 7th April, 2008 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No.539 of 1992. The Industrial Court had dismissed the complaint filed by the Petitioners 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). The Petitioners sought orders for confirmation as permanent workmen and payment of wages and benefits with retrospective effect. Originally, 20 workers were parties, but 18 settled, leaving only the two Petitioners. In an earlier order dated 19th December, 1995, the Industrial Court found violation of Items 6 and 9 but not Item 5. Both parties filed cross writ petitions: the workers' petition (Writ Petition No.6385 of 1996) and the Respondent Company's petition (Writ Petition No.1003 of 1996). These were disposed of by a learned Single Judge on 18th January, 2008, who confirmed the finding on Item 6 but set aside the finding on Item 9, holding that the Respondent Company's standing orders dated 29th April, 1957 were not certified before 15th January, 1959, and thus Model Standing Orders would apply. The matter was remanded to the Industrial Court for fresh consideration on Item 9. The Industrial Court, after remand, dismissed the complaint on Item 9, leading to the present petition. The High Court, after hearing arguments, found no perversity or error in the Industrial Court's order and dismissed the writ petition. The Court noted that the Petitioners failed to prove that the Respondent committed unfair labour practice under Item 9. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Item 9 Schedule IV M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 - Permanent Employment - The Petitioners alleged unfair labour practice for not being confirmed as permanent workmen. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint, and the High Court upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the Industrial Court's order. (Paras 1-10) B) Industrial Law - Standing Orders - Certification - Model Standing Orders - The High Court held that if an employer's standing orders were certified before 15.1.1959, Model Standing Orders would not apply. However, the Respondent Company failed to prove certification of its standing orders dated 29.4.1957. (Paras 8-9) C) Industrial Law - Burden of Proof - Permanent Employment - The Petitioners failed to establish that they were entitled to permanent employment under the applicable standing orders or that the Respondent committed unfair labour practice under Item 9. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the complaint of unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, and whether the Petitioners were entitled to confirmation as permanent workmen.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order dated 7th April, 2008. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Item 9 Schedule IV MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Standing Orders certification
- Model Standing Orders applicability
- Permanent employment
- Burden of proof
