Case Note & Summary
The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BEST Undertaking) challenged an order of the Industrial Court which had allowed the complaint of unfair labour practice filed by the respondent, Javid Abdul Mulla, a Deputy Charge Engineer. The respondent was arrested on 23 June 1995 for accepting a bribe of Rs.600/- and was placed under suspension on 26 June 1995 under Standing Order 25, as his basic salary was below Rs.1000/-. Subsequently, a pay revision with effect from 1 April 1996 raised his basic salary to Rs.1,295/-. A charge sheet was issued on 9 June 1997 under Service Regulation 10.2, and a disciplinary inquiry was initiated under the Service Regulations, as the petitioner contended that the respondent was not an 'employee' under Section 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and the certified standing orders did not apply to him. The respondent filed a complaint of unfair labour practices under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 on 16 February 1998. The Industrial Court held that the respondent was a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that the standing orders applied, setting aside the suspension and directing payment of full back wages. The High Court examined the definition of 'employee' under the BIR Act and found that the respondent's basic salary after revision exceeded Rs.1000/-, thus he was not an 'employee' under that Act, and the standing orders did not apply. However, the High Court upheld the Industrial Court's order on the ground that the suspension was invalid because the employer had not followed the procedure under the standing orders, which were inapplicable, and the suspension amounted to an unfair labour practice. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the Industrial Court's direction to pay full back wages and consequential benefits from the date of suspension till reinstatement.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Employee vs. Workman - Definition under BIR Act - The respondent, a Deputy Charge Engineer, was held not to be an 'employee' under Section 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 as his basic salary exceeded Rs.1000/- after revision, making the certified standing orders inapplicable. The Industrial Court's finding that he was a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was upheld, but the suspension order was set aside as the employer failed to follow the procedure under the standing orders. (Paras 1-3) B) Suspension - Pending Criminal Proceedings - Validity - The suspension order passed under Standing Order 25 was invalid because the standing orders did not apply to the respondent. The employer's action of suspending the respondent without following the applicable service regulations constituted an unfair labour practice under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. (Paras 2-4) C) Unfair Labour Practice - Items 9 and 10 - MRTU & PULP Act - The Industrial Court's order directing the petitioner to pay full back wages and consequential benefits from the date of suspension till reinstatement was upheld, as the suspension was found to be illegal and without authority. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent, a Deputy Charge Engineer drawing basic salary above Rs.1000/- after revision, is an 'employee' under Section 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and whether the certified standing orders apply to him; and whether the suspension order was valid.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order directing the petitioner to pay full back wages and consequential benefits to the respondent from the date of suspension till reinstatement.
Law Points
- Distinction between 'employee' under Bombay Industrial Relations Act
- 1946 and 'workman' under Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Applicability of certified standing orders to employees not covered by BIR Act
- Suspension pending criminal proceedings
- Unfair labour practice under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
