Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, three employees of M/s Kohinoor Mills (a unit of NTC Ltd.), filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the judgment and order dated 31.10.2002 of the Industrial Court, Mumbai, in Complaint (ULP) No.1040 of 2001. They alleged that the respondent employer engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The petitioners claimed to be 'Operatives' governed by settled Standing Order 20-A regarding retirement, but the respondent issued them Retirement Memos on 3.12.2001 relying on Model Standing Orders meant for non-operatives. The Industrial Court partly allowed the complaint, directing the respondent to continue the petitioners in employment till 31.12.2002, but did not adjudicate the core issue of whether the correct Standing Orders applied. The petitioners challenged this order, seeking a declaration that they are Operatives and entitled to retirement under Standing Order 20-A. The High Court noted that the Industrial Court had not decided the applicability of the correct Standing Orders and remanded the matter for fresh consideration on that limited issue. The court observed that the petitioners' work involved overseeing and maintaining machines, which could classify them as Operatives, and that the respondent's reliance on Model Standing Orders for non-operatives required examination. The petition was partly allowed, with the Industrial Court directed to decide the issue afresh after hearing both sides.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Retirement of Operatives - Items 5, 9, 10 of Schedule IV, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Petitioners, employed as Operatives, were retired by respondent using Model Standing Orders meant for non-operatives, whereas their service conditions were governed by settled Standing Order 20-A - Industrial Court partly allowed complaint directing continuation till 31.12.2002 but did not address the applicability of correct Standing Orders - Held that the issue of correct Standing Orders requires determination (Paras 1-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the retirement of petitioners as 'Operatives' based on Model Standing Orders applicable to non-operatives constitutes an unfair labour practice under the MRTU & PULP Act.
Final Decision
Writ petition partly allowed. Impugned order of Industrial Court set aside only to the extent of the finding on the issue of applicability of Standing Orders. Matter remanded to Industrial Court for fresh decision on that limited issue after hearing both sides. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Standing Orders
- Operatives
- Retirement age
- MRTU & PULP Act
- Schedule IV Items 5
- 9
- 10
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (03) 96
WRIT PETITION NO.709 OF 2003
Mr. S.N. Deshpande with Ms S.P. Munshi for the petitioners, Ms M.H. Doshi for respondent no.1
Shri Prabhakar Ganapat Patil, Shri Balu Dhaku Dhadawe, Shri Anant Gangaram Patil
M/s Kohinoor Mills (An Unit of N.T.C. Ltd. (M.N.)), Shri J.P. Limaye
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 challenging Industrial Court order in a complaint alleging unfair labour practices under MRTU & PULP Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to set aside the Industrial Court order and to declare that they are Operatives governed by Standing Order 20-A, not Model Standing Orders for non-operatives.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were retired by respondent using Model Standing Orders for non-operatives, whereas they claimed to be Operatives governed by Standing Order 20-A.
Previous Decisions
Industrial Court partly allowed the complaint directing continuation till 31.12.2002 but did not decide the applicability of correct Standing Orders.
Issues
Whether the petitioners are 'Operatives' governed by Standing Order 20-A or non-operatives under Model Standing Orders.
Whether the retirement of petitioners based on Model Standing Orders constitutes an unfair labour practice under Items 5, 9, 10 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued they are Operatives doing maintenance work, governed by Standing Order 20-A, and retirement under Model Standing Orders is illegal.
Respondent contended that petitioners are not Operatives and Model Standing Orders apply.
Ratio Decidendi
The Industrial Court must determine the correct classification of employees (Operative or non-operative) and the applicable Standing Orders before deciding on retirement age, as this is a jurisdictional fact affecting the validity of retirement.
Judgment Excerpts
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the judgement and order dated 31.10.2002 in Complaint (ULP) no.1040 of 2001 rendered by the Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai.
The petitioners contended in the complaint that the respondent no.1 before me has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labour practices under Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
Procedural History
Petitioners filed Complaint (ULP) No.1040 of 2001 before Industrial Court, Mumbai, alleging unfair labour practices. Industrial Court partly allowed complaint on 31.10.2002 directing continuation till 31.12.2002. Petitioners challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No.709 of 2003 before Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Schedule IV, Items 5, 9, 10
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946:
