Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd., a public limited company engaged in supply of textile machinery and civil construction, challenged the judgment and order dated 3rd October 1996 of the Industrial Court at Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No. 577 of 1987. The Industrial Court held the petitioner guilty of unfair labour practices under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The court directed the petitioner to reinstate the complainant, Mr. R. Rajamani Ponnalah, with full back wages and continuity from 22nd March 2004, and to extend the benefits and privileges of permanency in the post of clerk in 'C' Grade with effect from the date he completed 240 days of continuous service from 22nd March 1984, as well as the benefits of the Bilgrami award. The complainant, who possessed a B.A. degree, claimed he was appointed in August 1978 as a clerk but was paid on vouchers, no attendance record was maintained, and regular employee benefits were denied. He filed the complaint on 17th June 1987. The High Court, in this writ petition, examined the findings of the Industrial Court and upheld the order, confirming that the employer had engaged in unfair labour practices. The court found that the Industrial Court's decision was based on evidence and was not perverse. The petition was dismissed, and the order of the Industrial Court was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practices - Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Reinstatement and Back Wages - The employer was held guilty of unfair labour practices for denying permanency and benefits to a clerk who had completed 240 days of continuous service. The Industrial Court directed reinstatement with full back wages and continuity, and extension of permanency benefits from the date of completion of 240 days. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the employer engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, and whether the Industrial Court's order of reinstatement with full back wages and permanency benefits was justified.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the order of the Industrial Court dated 3rd October 1996, holding the petitioner guilty of unfair labour practices under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, and directing reinstatement with full back wages and continuity from 22nd March 2004, and extension of permanency benefits from the date of completion of 240 days continuous service from 22nd March 1984.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practices
- Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Reinstatement with full back wages
- Permanency benefits
- Continuous service of 240 days
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (10) 68
Writ Petition No. 276 of 1997
Mr. R.V. Paranjape with Mr. S.D. Puri for the petitioner, Smt. Shobhana Gopal for the respondent no.2
M/s Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd.
1. Mr. G.S. Baj, Member, Industrial Court, 2. Mr. R. Rajamani Ponnalah
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the judgment and order of the Industrial Court in a complaint of unfair labour practices.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner employer sought to quash the Industrial Court's order directing reinstatement with full back wages and permanency benefits.
Filing Reason
The employer was held guilty of unfair labour practices under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act and directed to reinstate the employee with full back wages and permanency benefits.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court at Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No. 577 of 1987 dated 3rd October 1996 held the petitioner guilty of unfair labour practices and directed reinstatement with full back wages and permanency benefits.
Issues
Whether the employer engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971?
Whether the Industrial Court's order of reinstatement with full back wages and permanency benefits was justified?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner employer argued that the Industrial Court's order was erroneous and not based on evidence.
The respondent employee supported the Industrial Court's order, claiming he was denied permanency and benefits despite completing 240 days of continuous service.
Ratio Decidendi
The employer's denial of permanency and benefits to an employee who had completed 240 days of continuous service constitutes unfair labour practices under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, warranting reinstatement with full back wages and permanency benefits.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner employer has been held to be guilty of engaging in unfair labour practices under items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act 1971
the petitioner was directed to reinstate the complainant in service with full back wages and continuity from 22nd March 2004
Procedural History
The respondent employee filed Complaint (ULP) No. 577 of 1987 before the Industrial Court at Mumbai on 17th June 1987. The Industrial Court rendered judgment and order on 3rd October 1996, holding the employer guilty of unfair labour practices and directing reinstatement with full back wages and permanency benefits. The employer challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No. 276 of 1997 before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 20th and 21st October 2005.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act): Schedule IV, Items 6 and 9
