Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ petition filed by M/s. Prakash Cotton Mills Ltd. challenging an order of the Industrial Court at Mumbai dated 26th July 2001. The Industrial Court had found the petitioner guilty of unfair labour practices under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The respondents were badli workers initially engaged in 1986 in the Plain Department. In 1990, the petitioner purchased Russian looms and formed a Russian Department, where the respondents worked as badli workers until 1st March 1999, when they were made permanent. However, they were confirmed in the Auto Weaving Department instead of the Russian Department. The workers raised a dispute claiming permanency in the Russian Department. From 5th August 1999, they were not given work, and their attendance cards from 11th August 1999 were endorsed as 'refused to work'. The workers filed a complaint alleging unfair labour practices under Items 3, 5, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV. The Industrial Court directed the petitioner to give permanency to the respondents in the Russian Department and to pay wages at par with workers in similar posts in the Russian Department for the days they were treated as having refused to work. The High Court upheld this order, finding no error in the Industrial Court's conclusion.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Permanency - Transfer to Different Department - Items 9 and 10, Schedule IV, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The employer granted permanency to badli workers in the Auto Weaving Department instead of the Russian Department where they had worked for years. The Industrial Court held this as an unfair labour practice. The High Court upheld the order, directing permanency in the Russian Department and payment of wages for days marked as refusal to work. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the employer's action of granting permanency to badli workers in a different department (Auto Weaving) instead of the department where they had worked (Russian Department) constitutes an unfair labour practice under Items 9 and 10 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 and upheld the Industrial Court order dated 26th July 2001.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- permanency
- badli workers
- transfer to different department
- MRTU & PULP Act
- Schedule IV Items 9 and 10
