Case Note & Summary
The present writ petitions were filed by the employer, a public limited company engaged in electricity generation and distribution, challenging the order of the Industrial Court, Mumbai dated 29th April 2006. The Industrial Court allowed complaints filed by the workmen under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act), holding that the employer had committed unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV. The workmen, who were engaged in maintenance work in the employer's Contract Division, claimed that they had worked for several years without breaks, completed 240 days of continuous service each year, and performed duties of a permanent nature. Despite this, they were treated as temporary "Voucher Staff" and denied the status and benefits of permanent employees, while other workmen performing similar work were made permanent and received higher wages. The employer contended that the workmen were project workers engaged for specific projects and that their engagement was co-terminus with the projects, and therefore they were not entitled to permanency. The Industrial Court, after evaluating evidence, found that the workmen had established that they were directly employed by the company and had completed 240 days; the employer failed to prove that they were genuine project workers. The court directed the employer to make the workmen permanent from the date each completed 240 days and to pay them wages and allowances at par with permanent employees. The employer then filed these writ petitions. Before the High Court, the employer argued that the workmen were project workers and relied on Supreme Court decisions in Gangadhar Pillai, M.N. Mishra, and Gurbachan Lal. The workmen argued that they were not engaged on specific projects and that the employer had not discharged the burden of proving project engagement as laid down in S.M. Nilajkar. The High Court examined the issue of project workers and the applicability of the cited precedents. The matter was reserved for judgment and pronounced on 6th December 2010, but the provided text does not include the final operative part of the judgment.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Classification of Workmen - Project Workers vs Permanent Employees - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Schedule IV Item 6 - The Industrial Court held that the employer failed to prove the workmen were engaged on specific projects and that their duties were permanent and perennial. The High Court, while hearing the writ petition, considered this as the first issue and examined Supreme Court precedents to determine whether the workmen were project workers. (Paras 8-11) B) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practices – Favouritism or Partiality - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Schedule IV Item 5 - The Industrial Court found that the employer committed unfair labour practice under Item 5 by treating similar workmen differently – some were made permanent and received higher wages, while complainants performing identical work were denied permanency and paid less. (Paras 4, 7) C) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practices – Continuation as Temporary for Years - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Schedule IV Item 6 - The Industrial Court held that employing workmen for years on temporary basis despite completion of 240 days and perennial nature of work amounted to unfair labour practice under Item 6. (Paras 4, 7) D) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practices – Failure to Implement Standing Orders - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Schedule IV Item 9 - The Industrial Court concluded that the employer violated Item 9 by not confirming the workmen in service after they completed 240 days of continuous service as required under the applicable Model Standing Orders 4B and 4C. (Paras 4, 7) E) Labour Law - Permanency and 240 Days Service - Entitlement to Permanent Status - Model Standing Orders, Standing Orders 4B and 4C - Workmen completed 240 days of uninterrupted service in each year, engaging in perennial work, thus entitling them to permanency. The Industrial Court directed the employer to confer permanent status from the date each workman completed 240 days and to pay wages and allowances at par with permanent employees. (Paras 4, 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the workmen were project workers or permanent employees; whether the employer committed unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act; whether the workmen were entitled to permanency and equal pay after completing 240 days of continuous service.
Law Points
- unfair labour practices
- completion of 240 days service
- project workers
- equal pay for equal work
- burden of proof on employer to establish project employment
- Model Standing Orders 4B and 4C
- permanent status
- MRTU & PULP Act Schedule IV Items 5
- 6
- 9
