Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra, through the District Civil Surgeon, Parbhani, and the Deputy Director of Health Services, Aurangabad, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 4th December 2006 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Jalna, in Revision (ULP) No. 73 of 2006. The respondent, Mehboobkhan S/o Rasool Khan Pathan, was appointed as a driver on a temporary basis for 29 days on 11th May 1994 by the District Civil Surgeon. The appointment order stipulated that he would continue until a regular employee was appointed. He worked continuously from his appointment until February 1999. On 24th February 1999, the Deputy Director of Health Services instructed the Civil Surgeon that since the respondent had put in uninterrupted service of 12 months, he was entitled to annual increment and other benefits as per rules for temporary government appointments. Consequently, the respondent was given benefits including membership of the General Provident Fund. The Civil Surgeon failed to appoint a regular driver, and the respondent continued working until his services were terminated on 1st February 2003. The respondent filed Complaint ULP No. 63 of 2003 before the Labour Court, Jalna, alleging that the termination amounted to an unfair labour practice under Section 28(1) read with Item 1(a)(b)(d) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act). He claimed entitlement to permanency status as per Government Resolution dated 8th March 1999. The Civil Surgeon opposed the complaint, but the Labour Court allowed it and directed reinstatement with continuity from 1st February 2003. The Civil Surgeon challenged this order before the Industrial Court in Revision (ULP) No. 73 of 2006, which was dismissed. The State then filed the present writ petition. The High Court, after hearing arguments, found no merit in the petition. The court noted that the respondent had worked continuously for over 12 months and was granted benefits like GPF membership, indicating that his service was treated as continuous. The termination was held to be illegal and an unfair labour practice. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Termination of Temporary Employee - Section 28(1) read with Item 1(a)(b)(d) of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The respondent, appointed as a temporary driver for 29 days, worked continuously from May 1994 to February 1999. The Deputy Director directed that he be given benefits including annual increment and GPF membership due to uninterrupted service of 12 months. His termination on 1st February 2003 was challenged as unfair labour practice. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement with continuity, which was upheld by the Industrial Court and the High Court. Held that the termination was illegal and amounted to unfair labour practice (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of a temporary driver who had worked continuously for over 12 months amounted to an unfair labour practice, and whether he was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court directing reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service.
Law Points
- Unfair Labour Practice
- Reinstatement
- Temporary Employee
- Continuous Service
- Permanency
- Government Resolution
- MRTU and PULP Act
