Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, King Edward Memorial Hospital, challenged the order of the Industrial Court, Pune, which allowed the complaint filed by the respondent, Suresh D. Gaikwad, declaring that the employer engaged in unfair labour practice under Items 3, 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The respondent had served as a Driver in the Indian Army for fifteen years and was appointed as a Driver by the petitioner on 04.05.1994. He worked continuously as a Driver for fourteen years. In July 2002, the employer demoted him to the post of Lift Operator, and later, on 01.12.2008, unilaterally changed his designation and duties without prior notice or issuing notice under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent contended that the work of a Driver is semi-skilled while that of a Lift Operator is unskilled, and the change in service conditions was prejudicial. The employer argued that the complaint was not maintainable as the dispute could be raised under the I.D. Act, and that the change was not a demotion but a transfer. The Industrial Court allowed the complaint, directing the employer to desist from unfair labour practice and to restore the respondent to the post of Driver with wages. The High Court, in its analysis, held that the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under the MRTU and PULP Act, and that the employer's unilateral action without notice under Section 9-A of the I.D. Act constituted unfair labour practice. The High Court found no perversity or error of jurisdiction in the Industrial Court's order and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the direction to restore the respondent to the post of Driver.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Demotion - Items 3, 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Section 9-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The employer unilaterally changed the service conditions of the complainant by demoting him from Driver to Lift Operator without issuing any notice under Section 9-A of the I.D. Act. The Industrial Court held that such action amounts to unfair labour practice. The High Court upheld the order, finding no perversity or error of jurisdiction. (Paras 2-5, 10-11) B) Industrial Law - Jurisdiction of Industrial Court - Items 3, 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging unfair labour practice even if the dispute could be raised under the I.D. Act. The employer's contention that the complaint was not maintainable was rejected. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the employer's unilateral action of changing the complainant's designation from Driver to Lift Operator without issuing notice under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 constitutes unfair labour practice under Items 3, 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Industrial Court. The employer was directed to desist from unfair labour practice and to restore the respondent to the post of Driver with wages.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Demotion
- Change of service conditions
- Notice under Section 9-A
- Items 3
- 5 and 9 of Schedule IV
- MRTU and PULP Act
- 1971
