Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra and its forest department officials filed a writ petition challenging the Industrial Court's judgment dated 11/02/2005 in Complaint (ULP) No.251/1996. The Industrial Court had allowed the complaint filed by Pravin Trimbak Kulkarni, declaring that the respondents (the State) engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6, and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act). The Industrial Court directed the respondents to cease and desist from continuing the unfair labour practice and to grant permanency to the complainant along with benefits from 06/08/1996, the date of filing the complaint. The State, through the Assistant Conservator of Forests, filed a Civil Application No.11454/2018 stating that the Government had issued a Government Resolution (GR) dated 10/05/2018 granting permanency to the complainant as an 'Office Helper' and sought a direction from the High Court that the complainant accept that position without protest. The complainant's advocate argued that the complainant had been working as a Clerk-cum-Typist since 01/10/1991 on daily wages and had filed the ULP complaint in 1996. Due to interim orders, he continued in service and was paid a consolidated amount of Rs.611/- from 01/10/1991 till 21/10/2016. He submitted that having worked for over 28 years as a Clerk-cum-Typist, he could not be shifted to the class of 'Vanmajoor' or be directed to accept permanency as an 'Office Helper'. The High Court, after considering the submissions, observed that it is settled law that an employee cannot take advantage of the continuance of employment under interim orders. However, the Court noted that the Industrial Court's direction was based on the employee's actual work and not merely on continuance. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order and rejecting the State's attempt to compel the employee to accept a lower post.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Permanency - Items 5, 6, 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court declared that the employer engaged in unfair labour practices and directed permanency to the complainant as a Clerk-cum-Typist from the date of complaint. The High Court upheld the direction, noting that the employee had worked as a Clerk-cum-Typist since 1991 and could not be forced to accept a lower post of Office Helper. (Paras 2-5) B) Industrial Law - Government Resolution - Permanency - Offer of Lower Post - The State's offer of permanency as an Office Helper under GR dated 10/05/2018 was rejected by the employee who had worked as a Clerk-cum-Typist for over 28 years. The High Court held that the employee cannot be compelled to accept a lower classification. (Paras 3-5) C) Industrial Law - Continuance of Employment - Advantage - Settled Law - The High Court observed that it is settled law that an employee cannot take advantage of the continuance of employment under interim orders to claim higher benefits, but in this case, the Industrial Court's direction was based on the employee's actual work and not merely on continuance. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court's direction to grant permanency to the complainant as a Clerk-cum-Typist from the date of complaint is sustainable, and whether the State can compel the employee to accept permanency as an Office Helper instead.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. Industrial Court's order dated 11/02/2005 in Complaint (ULP) No.251/1996 upheld. State's prayer to direct employee to accept permanency as Office Helper rejected.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- permanency
- MRTU and PULP Act
- Schedule IV Items 5
- 6
- 9
- employee cannot be forced to accept lower post
- settled law on continuance of employment
