Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Maharashtra Association of General Workers, a trade union, filed a writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated November 20, 2003, passed by the Industrial Court at Mumbai dismissing Complaint (ULP) No.312 of 1997. The complaint was filed under Sections 28 and 30 read with Item 6 of Schedule II and Items 5, 6, and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). However, during arguments, the petitioner's counsel restricted the case to Item 6 of Schedule IV, which deals with unfair labour practices relating to employment. The respondent No.1 company, M/s. Steelage Industries Ltd., was engaged in manufacturing steel furniture and safes at its factory in Mazgaon, Mumbai, and employed over 300 permanent, temporary, and casual workmen. The union alleged that 15 workmen (named in Annexure 'A' to the complaint) had been employed as helpers since 1983 and had rendered continuous service for several years, but the company gave them breaks in service from time to time to deny them permanency. The union claimed this constituted an unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint, finding that the workmen had not completed 240 days of continuous service in any calendar year. The union challenged this decision in the High Court. The court examined the evidence and found that the union failed to prove that the workmen had worked for 240 days in any year. The court noted that the workmen had not produced any documentary evidence to show continuous service. The court upheld the Industrial Court's finding and dismissed the writ petition, holding that no unfair labour practice was established.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Item 6 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Burden of Proof - The petitioner-union alleged that the respondent company committed unfair labour practice by giving break in service to 15 workmen to deny them permanency. The court held that the union failed to prove that the workmen had rendered continuous service for the requisite period. The Industrial Court's finding that the workmen did not complete 240 days of continuous service in any calendar year was upheld. (Paras 1-6) B) Industrial Law - Permanency - Continuous Service - The court examined the evidence and found that the workmen had not worked for 240 days in any year. The company's practice of giving breaks was not established as a deliberate unfair labour practice. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent company committed unfair labour practice covered under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 by denying permanency to 15 workmen.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. The Industrial Court's order dated November 20, 2003, dismissing Complaint (ULP) No.312 of 1997 is upheld.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Item 6 Schedule IV MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- burden of proof
- continuous service
- break in service
