Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to a batch of 18 writ petitions arising from complaints before the Industrial Court under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The petitioners included unions and employees of the University of Mumbai, who alleged that the university engaged in unfair labour practices under items 5, 6, and 9 of Schedule IV by employing them as temporary or casual workers for extended periods, with the object of denying them permanent status and benefits. The employees, numbering over 900 in various cadres such as junior clerks, security guards, sweepers, peons, data entry operators, etc., claimed to have worked for more than 240 days in each block of 12 months, thus eligible for permanency. The Industrial Court, in several complaints (ULP Nos. 13/2014, 282/2013, 385/2014, etc.), passed orders in January 2018, declaring the university guilty of unfair labour practice and directing that the employees be paid salary equivalent to the lowest grade of regular employees from the date of judgment and restraining termination without due process. The university challenged these orders in writ petitions, while the employees also filed petitions seeking enhanced relief. The High Court clubbed all 18 petitions and issued Rule, making it returnable forthwith, and heard them finally. The court recorded the factual matrix and the arguments canvassed by both sides, with lead arguments for employees by Mr. Shailesh Naidu and for the university by Senior Advocate Srihari Aney. The court examined the nature of employment and the Industrial Court's findings that the university's actions fell within the ambit of unfair labour practice. It ultimately disposed of the petitions, upholding the Industrial Court's orders and directing the university to comply with the directions of payment of minimum salary and maintenance of status quo, thereby granting relief to the workers. The decision reinforced the principle that employing workers on a prolonged temporary basis with the objective of depriving them of permanency constitutes an unfair labour practice, warranting appropriate directions for regularization and equal pay.
Headnote
A) Labour Law – Unfair Labour Practice – Continuing employees as temporary/casual for years with object to deny permanency – Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Schedule IV Items 5, 6, 9 – Industrial Court found Mumbai University engaged in unfair labour practice by employing 938+ workers for years without permanency, despite completing 240 days in blocks of 12 months – Court directed payment of salary equivalent to lowest grade of regular employees from date of order and restrained termination – Held that such practice constitutes unfair labour practice (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court correctly held that the University of Mumbai engaged in unfair labour practices under Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act by employing workers on temporary/casual basis for extended periods and granting relief of permanency and equal pay.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practices under items 5
- 6
- 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act
- permanency on completion of 240 days of continuous service
- equal pay for equal work
- jurisdiction of Industrial Court under section 28 of MRTU & PULP Act
- powers of University under Maharashtra Public Universities Act
- 2016
