Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from six writ petitions filed by the Chief Executive Officer of Osmanabad Zilla Dekhrekh Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, challenging the orders of the Industrial Court, Latur. The Industrial Court had allowed complaints under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, directing the petitioner to cease and desist from unfair labour practices and to make the complainants permanent on the posts of Group Secretary with consequential benefits. The complainants were individuals working as clerks and later as Group Secretaries for various periods. They alleged that despite performing the same work as regular Group Secretaries and a resolution passed by the petitioner to absorb them, they were not made permanent, and there was a breach of the principle of equal pay for equal work. The petitioner opposed the complaints, contending that there was no employer-employee relationship, that the Industrial Court should have framed a preliminary issue on that point, and that the grant of permanency was contrary to the law laid down in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, as the petitioner was a public employer. The petitioner also argued that the State Government had imposed a ban on recruitment through circulars, and that the Industrial Court misconstrued these directions along with the amendments to the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The respondents supported the Industrial Court’s order, pointing to the continuous service of more than 240 days, the petitioner’s own resolution, and subsequent government directions to absorb working persons. The High Court, after hearing both sides, disposed of the writ petitions. However, the extracted text does not contain the detailed reasoning and final operative order of the High Court, and therefore the precise outcome cannot be stated.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Item 5 of Schedule IV, MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court found that the employer committed an unfair labour practice by not making the complainants permanent despite them performing duties as Group Secretaries for long periods and a resolution to absorb them (Paras 3, 4, 6).
B) Labour Law - Employer-Employee Relationship - The Industrial Court did not frame a preliminary issue on employer-employee relationship despite the employer's specific denial, which was challenged by the petitioner citing Executive Engineer (O &
M) M.S.E.B. v. Hajarabi Abbas Khatik, (2011) 1 Bom.C.R. 587 (Para 5).
C) Service Law - Regularization of Employees - The petitioner relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, to argue that the complainants could not claim permanency as of right, especially in public employment (Para 5).
D) Co-operative Societies - Government Directions - The petitioner contended that by circulars dated 30.09.2009 and 06.12.2004, the State Government had imposed a ban on recruitment, and that the Industrial Court misconstrued these directions along with amendments to the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (Para 5).
E) Labour Law - Equal Pay for Equal Work - The complainants claimed they performed the same work as regular Group Secretaries but were paid less, violating the principle of equal pay for equal work, which the Industrial Court accepted (Paras 3, 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in granting permanency to the complainants as Group Secretaries and in holding that the petitioner committed an unfair labour practice under Item 5 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, and whether the complainants were entitled to regularization despite government bans and the judgment in Umadevi.
Law Points
- Employer-employee relationship
- Unfair labour practice
- Item 5 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act
- Regularization of employees
- Equal pay for equal work
- 240 days continuous service
- Government circulars and ban on recruitment
- Effect of Umadevi judgment
- Resolution No.4
- Amendments to Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (03) 18
Writ Petition No. 2502 of 2012 (with connected Writ Petition Nos. 2500, 2501, 2514, 2515, 2516 of 2012)
P.S. Chavan for Petitioner; V.D. Salunke for Respondent No.1; D.R. Kale, AGP for Respondent No.3
The Chief Executive Officer, Osmanabad Zilla Dekhrekh Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Osmanabad
Vaijinath s/o Abasaheb Shinde & Ors., The Chief General Manager, NABARD, The Government of Maharashtra, The Chairman, Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Industrial Court which had directed the petitioner-employer to cease and desist from unfair labour practices and to make the respondent-employees permanent on the posts of Group Secretary with consequential benefits.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the Industrial Court's order granting permanency to the employees.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contended that the Industrial Court erred in granting permanency without framing a preliminary issue on employer-employee relationship, ignoring the ban on recruitment imposed by the State Government, and misapplying the judgment in Umadevi regarding regularization of public employees.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court, Latur, in Complaints (ULP) No. 22, 26, 27, 25, 24, and 23 of 2008, allowed the complaints and directed the respondents (including petitioner herein) to make the complainants permanent on the posts of Group Secretary with consequential benefits, finding unfair labour practice under Item 5 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in granting permanency without determining the employer-employee relationship first.
Whether the complainants were entitled to regularization as Group Secretaries in light of the government ban and the law laid down in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1.
Whether the petitioner’s act of not making the complainants permanent despite continuous service and equal work constituted an unfair labour practice under Item 5 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.
Whether the Industrial Court correctly interpreted the government circulars and the amendments to the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that there was no employer-employee relationship and the Industrial Court should have framed a preliminary issue on the point.
Petitioner relied on the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, to argue that a public employer cannot regularize daily-wage workers without following constitutional provisions.
Petitioner contended that the State Government had imposed a ban on recruitment for Group Secretary posts through circulars, and that the Industrial Court misconstrued these directions along with amendments to the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
Respondents argued that the Industrial Court had correctly considered the resolution passed by the petitioner and the continuous service of more than 240 days, and that the government itself later issued directions to absorb working persons.
Respondents submitted that they were appointed as Group Secretaries, received salary from the petitioner, and performed same work as regular Group Secretaries, but were denied equal pay, thereby justifying the finding of unfair labour practice.
Judgment Excerpts
All these petitions take exception to the judgments and orders delivered on 22nd and 23rd September, 2011 by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Latur in Complaints (ULP) no.22, 26, 27, 25, 24, and 23/2008.
The complainants submitted that there are many employees working as Group Secretary and getting salary in the pay scale of Rs.4,000-6,000. ... respondents have committed breach of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner herein and respondent No.1 - complainants.
The learned Counsel further submitted that the prayer for permanency could not have been granted by the Industrial Court since the petitioner is a public employer, in view of the judgment in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others [(2006) 4 SCC 1].
It is submitted that as per the decision taken in the special general body meeting dated 27th February, 2004, it was specifically resolved that considering the ban imposed by the State Government, the employees of respondent No.4 were authorized to act and sign as Group Secretary.
Procedural History
The respondent No.1 employees filed complaints before the Industrial Court, Latur under the MRTU & PULP Act alleging unfair labour practice by the petitioner (their employer) in not making them permanent as Group Secretaries and not paying equal pay. The Industrial Court allowed the complaints on 22nd and 23rd September 2011, directing the employer to cease and desist from unfair labour practices and to make the complainants permanent with consequential benefits. The petitioner filed these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the Industrial Court's orders.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Schedule IV, Item 5
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960: 69-A, 69-B
- Constitution of India: Article 226
