Case Note & Summary
The judgment arises from a writ petition filed by Century Rayon (a division of Century Textiles & Industries Ltd.) challenging an order of the Industrial Court dated March 16, 2005. The Industrial Court had allowed a complaint of unfair labour practice filed by two workmen, Anand Dadau Ubale and another, 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 workmen alleged that they had been employed by the petitioner since 1975 and 1984 respectively, working as helpers/peons at the head office in Mumbai, but were kept as temporary employees despite performing work of a permanent nature. They claimed that in April 1996, they were prevented from reporting for duty and were directed to report at the establishment at Shahad, resulting in loss of emoluments. The Industrial Court found that the employer's conduct in keeping the workmen as temporaries for years together violated statutory provisions and the Standing Orders, and directed conferment of permanency with consequential benefits. The employer challenged this order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, after considering the submissions, held that the Industrial Court's findings were based on evidence and did not suffer from any perversity or error of law. The court noted that the workmen had been in uninterrupted service for long periods and that the employer's action in transferring them and denying permanency amounted to an unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Permanency - Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court directed conferment of permanency upon two workmen who had been engaged as temporary employees since 1975 and 1984 respectively, holding that the employer's conduct in keeping them as temporaries for years constituted an unfair labour practice - The High Court upheld the order, finding no perversity or error of law warranting interference under Article 226 (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in directing conferment of permanency upon two workmen who had been engaged as temporary employees for long periods, and whether the employer's challenge under Article 226 is maintainable.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order directing conferment of permanency upon the two workmen with consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Permanency
- Temporary employment
- Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act
- 1971
- Industrial Court jurisdiction
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (03) 188
WRIT PETITION NO.537 OF 2002
Mr. J.P. Cama, Senior Advocate i/b. RMG Law & Associates for the Petitioner; Mr. C.U. Singh with Ms. Helani D'Souza i/b. Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for Respondent No.1
Century Rayon (A Division of Century Textiles & Industries Ltd.)
Shri Anand Dadau Ubale & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 challenging an order of the Industrial Court directing conferment of permanency upon two workmen.
Remedy Sought
The employer (petitioner) sought to quash the Industrial Court's order directing permanency and consequential benefits to the workmen.
Filing Reason
The employer challenged the Industrial Court's order on the ground that it was erroneous and without jurisdiction.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court had allowed the complaint of unfair labour practice and directed conferment of permanency upon the two workmen.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court's order directing permanency was justified on facts and law.
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with the Industrial Court's findings.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner (employer) argued that the workmen were not entitled to permanency as they were temporary employees and the Industrial Court erred in its findings.
The respondents (workmen) supported the Industrial Court's order, contending that they had been in uninterrupted service for years and the employer's conduct constituted an unfair labour practice.
Ratio Decidendi
The Industrial Court's finding that keeping workmen as temporaries for years together, despite performing work of a permanent nature, constitutes an unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, and the High Court will not interfere under Article 226 unless the finding is perverse or based on no evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
The Industrial Court has tried a complaint of unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, and directed the conferment of permanency in service upon two workmen who formed the subject matter of the complaint with consequential benefits.
The complainants alleged that about 6000 employees were employed by the Petitioner besides whom 100 were working in the Head Office at Industrial House, Churchgate, Mumbai.
Procedural History
The workmen filed a complaint of unfair labour practice on 17th October 1996 before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court allowed the complaint and directed conferment of permanency. The employer challenged this order by filing a writ petition under Article 226 before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on March 16, 2005.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Schedule IV, Items 5, 6, 9, 10
