Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a complaint of unfair labour practice filed by a daily wage watchman who worked for the Directorate of Printing and Stationery, Government of Maharashtra, from 1969 until his discontinuation in October 1991. The employee claimed that he had been engaged as a watchman on daily wages at the Government Type Writers Repair Workshop in Nasik and was terminated by an office order effective 31 October 1991 on the ground of having crossed 60 years of age. In January 1992, he approached the Industrial Court at Nasik under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act), alleging unfair labour practices under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV. He sought a declaration of permanency from the date of initial appointment and withdrawal of the termination order with retrenchment benefits. The Industrial Court, by its order dated 17 January 1995, held the employer guilty of unfair labour practice under Item 6, observing that the employer’s failure to regularise a worker who had served for 22 years amounted to deprivation of permanent status, and directed that the complainant be given the pay scale of a Class IV employee and that the termination order be withdrawn. The employer challenged this decision by way of a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Before the High Court, the employer contended that the complainant was a daily labourer paid from contingencies, never appointed against a sanctioned post, and was overage at the time of initial engagement, thus not eligible for regular government employment. It was argued that in the absence of a sanctioned post, continuing a temporary hand does not by itself constitute an unfair labour practice under Item 6. The employee, represented by his legal representatives (he died during proceedings), relied on the long duration of service and the principle of equal pay for equal work. The High Court examined the ingredients of Item 6, which require proof that casuals or temporaries are continued for years with the object of depriving them of permanent status. It held that when a government department lacks a sanctioned post, such continuation does not evince the requisite object. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130, to stress that regularisation cannot be ordered without a vacancy and adherence to recruitment rules. It found that the Industrial Court had effectively nullified recruitment rules by directing permanency. Consequently, the finding of unfair labour practice was set aside. However, the court invoked Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P., (1986) 1 SCC 637, to hold that temporary employees performing the same duties as regular Class IV employees are entitled to the same salary under Article 14 of the Constitution. As the complainant had worked from 1969 to 1991 without receiving the regular pay scale, the court directed that the sum of Rs.20,000 deposited by the employer at the time of admission, along with accrued interest, be paid to the legal representatives as arrears of salary/wages for the period from August 1985 to 19 October 1991. The writ petition was thus allowed in part, affirming the principle of equal pay while rejecting the complaint of unfair labour practice.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Proof of Object to Deprive Permanent Status - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Schedule IV Item 6 - The employer continued the complainant as a daily wage watchman for 22 years. Items 6 requires proof of employing casuals/temporaries, continuing them for years, and the object of depriving permanent status. In government service, absence of a sanctioned post negates such object, and continuation due to non-availability of permanent posts does not constitute unfair labour practice. Held that the Industrial Court’s finding was unsustainable. (Paras 5-6, 8) B) Service Law - Regularisation - Government Service - State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130 - Regularisation cannot be ordered without existence of a vacancy, adherence to recruitment rules, and eligibility. Directions to regularise temporary employees without these conditions are impermissible. The complainant had not undergone prescribed selection, was overage, and no sanctioned post existed. (Paras 6, 8-9) C) Constitutional Law - Equal Pay for Equal Work - Article 14, Constitution of India - Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P., (1986) 1 SCC 637 - Temporary employees performing same duties as regular Class IV employees are entitled to same salary and conditions of service, irrespective of sanctioned posts. The complainant performed watchman duties for 22 years but was paid daily wages; he was entitled to pay scale from the date of law laid down in Dhirendra Chamoli. (Paras 7, 10-12) D) Unfair Labour Practice - Relief of Permanency - Reinstatement Requirement - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Schedule IV Item 9 - The complainant sought permanency while out of employment. Relief of permanency cannot be granted unless termination is set aside and reinstatement ordered. The complaint under Item 9 lacked reasoning and was not sustainable. (Para 4A) E) Compensation - In Lieu of Back Wages - Arrears on Equal Pay Principle - The court directed the deposited amount of Rs.20,000 with accrued interest to be withdrawn by the legal representatives towards arrears of salary/wages for the period August 1985 to 19/10/1991, balancing the dismissal of the complaint with equitable payment. (Paras 7A, 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was right in holding the petitioners guilty of unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, and whether the complainant was entitled to permanency and consequential benefits without a sanctioned post and despite being out of employment
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed; Industrial Court's finding of unfair labour practice set aside; complaint dismissed. However, the amount of Rs.20,000 deposited with accrued interest allowed to be withdrawn by respondent legal heirs towards arrears of salary/wages for period August 1985 to 19/10/1991.
Law Points
- To prove unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- employer must employ casuals/temporaries
- continue them for years
- with object of depriving permanent status
- Government department cannot be held guilty of unfair labour practice under Item 6 if no sanctioned post exists
- temporary employees performing same duties as regular employees entitled to same salary and conditions of service under Article 14
- regularization cannot be ordered without vacancy and adherence to recruitment rules
