Case Note & Summary
The writ petitions arose from a common judgment of the Industrial Court, Pune, dated 13-3-1996, which dismissed 63 workmen's complaints seeking permanency and consequential reliefs under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The workmen had been employed as casual helpers by Mather & Platt (I) Ltd. since 1981 and claimed that they had completed more than 240 days of service each year, thus entitled to permanency under Clause 4-C of the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. They alleged unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV of the State Act. The Industrial Court held that there was no material to support Item 5 (favouritism), did not press Item 10, and dismissed the complaints on the ground that individual complaints for permanency under Items 6 and 9 were not maintainable because a recognised union existed and had the exclusive right to file such complaints. The recognised union, Mather & Platt Employees Union, had signed tri-partite and bi-partite settlements on 6-10-1989 wherein the permanency demand was dropped. The management opposed the complaints on maintainability and merits, contending that none of the workmen had completed 240 days of continuous service and that the demand was settled. In the writ petitions, the workmen argued that the Industrial Court erred in law by refusing to examine evidence for Item 9 independently, and that documents from the Employees State Insurance Corporation were unjustly discarded. The High Court began examining the correctness of the Industrial Court's order itemwise but the available text breaks off after the commencement of analysis of Item 5. The final decision of the High Court is not included in the provided excerpt.
Issue of Consideration
Whether individual workmen can maintain complaints under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 for permanency when a recognised union is in place, and whether the Industrial Court was justified in dismissing the complaints on maintainability without examining merits.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practices under Items 5
- 6
- 9
- 10 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act
- maintainability of individual complaints when recognised union exists
- interpretation of Model Standing Orders Clause 4-C
- effect of settlement dropping permanency demand
- necessity for factual adjudication of 240 days of service
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (07) 214
Writ Petition Nos. 3079/1996, 3267/1996, and 3734/1996
Mr. Haresh Motwani, Mr. N.M. Ganguli, Mr. C.U. Singh, Mr. R.N. Salgaonkar
Patilbuwa Kisanrao Tapkir and Others; Chandrakant Balkrishna Mali; Ramrao Sopanrao Jadhav
Mather & Platt (I) Ltd., General Manager, Mather & Platt (I) Ltd., and Shri S.S. Hirurkar, Member, Industrial Court, Pune
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging Industrial Court's common judgment dismissing workmen's complaints for permanency and consequential reliefs under MRTU & PULP Act.
Remedy Sought
Workmen sought permanency status as permanent employees and consequential benefits, alleging unfair labour practices by employer.
Filing Reason
Workmen alleged they were kept as casuals for years despite completing 240 days, in violation of Model Standing Orders and MRTU & PULP Act.
Previous Decisions
Industrial Court, Pune, by common judgment dated 13-3-1996 dismissed the complaints, holding individual complaints not maintainable as recognised union had exclusive right.
Issues
Whether individual workmen can maintain complaints under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act when there is a recognised union.
Whether Industrial Court was justified in dismissing complaints on maintainability without examining evidence on merits.
Whether dropping demand for permanency in settlement bars individual workmen's claims.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners: Individual complaints under Item 9 maintainable even if Item 6 not maintainable; Industrial Court erred in refusing to examine evidence; documents from ESIC should have been considered.
Respondent: Recognised union dropped permanency demand in settlement, binding on workmen; individuals cannot claim permanency; none completed 240 days; complaints not maintainable.
Judgment Excerpts
the Industrial Court was pleased to dismiss all these complaints which were filed under Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971
the individual complaints were not tenable as there was a recognised union representing the workmen of the respondent management at the relevant time when the complaints were filed and it being the exclusive right of such recognised union to move a complaint of unfair labour practice seeking the benefits of permanency, the individual complaints could not be entertained.
even if it was legally presumed that the complaint under Item 6 of Schedule IV filed by the individual workman was not maintainable, it was necessary for the Industrial Court to examine the evidence so as to consider the case of unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the State Act and it was not permissible for the Industrial Court to decline to do so only on the ground that the relief of permanency is covered by Item 6 of the same Schedule which could be invoked only by a recognised union and, therefore, the complaint for the said benefit of permanency filed under Item 9 could not be entertained.
Procedural History
Initially, 10 workmen filed complaints in 1990; later, 50 more in 1992 and 3 in 1994. All complaints heard together by Industrial Court, Pune, and dismissed on 13-3-1996. Workmen filed writ petitions before Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Items 5, 6, 9, 10 of Schedule IV
- Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946: Model Standing Orders, Clause 4-C
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(p), Section 12(3), Section 18(1), Section 18(3), Rule 62 of Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957
