Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, forest officers of the Gadchiroli Forest Division, challenged the judgment and order dated 15/9/2009 of the learned Member of the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 65/1998. The respondent, Mohan Raghuvir Chavan, was initially employed as a daily wager from 1/9/1987. After working for about ten years, he filed a complaint alleging unfair labour practice under Item 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, declaring that the petitioners had indulged in unfair labour practice and directed them to grant the benefit of Government Resolution dated 31/1/1996 to the respondent, as he had completed five years of service on or before 1/11/1994. The petitioners were directed to grant permanency with monetary benefits from 1/11/1994. The High Court, in its oral judgment, found no perversity or error of law in the Industrial Court's order. The court noted that the respondent had completed five years of service before the cut-off date of 1/11/1994, as he was employed from 1/9/1987. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Permanency to Daily Wagers - Item 9 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Government Resolution dated 31/1/1996 - The respondent, employed as a daily wager from 1/9/1987, completed five years of service before 1/11/1994. The Industrial Court allowed his complaint, declaring that the petitioners indulged in unfair labour practice by not granting him permanency. The High Court upheld the order, finding no perversity or error of law. (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent, a daily wager who completed five years of service on or before 1/11/1994, is entitled to the benefit of permanency under Government Resolution dated 31/1/1996, and whether the Industrial Court correctly held that the petitioners indulged in unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order dated 15/9/2009. The rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Item 9 Schedule IV MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Government Resolution dated 31/1/1996
- permanency to daily wagers
- completion of five years service
- cut-off date 1/11/1994
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (06) 109
Writ Petition No.904 of 2011
Ms. T. Khan, Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioners; Shri B.M. Khan, Advocate for the respondent
Deputy Conservator of Forest, Gadchiroli Forest Division, Gadchiroli; Range Forest Officer, Forest Division, Gadchiroli; Round Officer, Manda, Gadchiroli Range, Gadchiroli
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the judgment and order of the Industrial Court allowing a complaint of unfair labour practice and directing grant of permanency to a daily wager.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (forest officers) sought to quash the Industrial Court's order dated 15/9/2009 which directed them to grant permanency and monetary benefits to the respondent.
Filing Reason
The petitioners alleged that the Industrial Court erred in allowing the complaint and directing permanency, as the respondent did not fulfill the conditions of the Government Resolution.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 65/1998 allowed the complaint on 15/9/2009, declaring unfair labour practice and directing permanency with monetary benefits from 1/11/1994.
Issues
Whether the respondent completed five years of service on or before 1/11/1994 to be entitled to the benefit of Government Resolution dated 31/1/1996.
Whether the Industrial Court's finding of unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 is perverse or erroneous in law.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the Industrial Court's order was erroneous and that the respondent was not entitled to permanency.
The respondent supported the Industrial Court's order, contending that he had completed five years of service before the cut-off date.
Ratio Decidendi
A daily wager who has completed five years of service on or before the cut-off date of 1/11/1994 is entitled to the benefit of permanency under Government Resolution dated 31/1/1996. The Industrial Court's finding of unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 was not perverse or erroneous in law.
Judgment Excerpts
The above petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 15/9/2009 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 65/1998 filed by the respondent herein.
The respondent herein was initially employed as a daily wager from 1/9/1987.
The Industrial Court allowed the complaint and declared that the respondents, i.e. petitioners herein, have indulged in an unfair labour practice and it was directed that the complainant is entitled to the benefit of Government Resolution dated 31/1/1996 since he has completed five years of service on or before 1/11/1994.
Procedural History
The respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No. 65/1998 before the Industrial Court alleging unfair labour practice. The Industrial Court allowed the complaint on 15/9/2009. The petitioners challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No.904 of 2011 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on 21/6/2011.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Item 9 of Schedule IV
