Case Note & Summary
The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) challenged an order of the Industrial Court, Nagpur, which declared that the Corporation was engaged in unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) by not providing alternate employment to respondent no.1, Diwakar Madhukarrao Malkapure. Respondent no.1 had been working as a driver with MSRTC since 1979. During his employment, he was referred for a visual acuity test and was declared medically unfit to drive. Consequently, MSRTC terminated his services with effect from 15th January 2002. The Industrial Court, in Complaint (ULP) No. 262/2006, held that the failure to provide alternate employment constituted unfair labour practice and directed MSRTC to pay wages from 2nd August 2002 until the date of superannuation, along with costs of Rs. 2000. The High Court, after hearing the parties, upheld the Industrial Court's order, ruling that the failure to provide alternate employment to a medically unfit employee amounts to unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Alternate Employment - Item 9 of Schedule IV, MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Employer failed to provide alternate employment to employee declared medically unfit for driving - Industrial Court declared unfair labour practice and directed payment of wages till superannuation - Held that failure to provide alternate employment to a medically unfit employee amounts to unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the failure of the employer to provide alternate employment to an employee declared medically unfit for his current post constitutes unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court order dated 6th September 2011.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Alternate employment
- Medical unfitness
- Item 9 Schedule IV MRTU & PULP Act
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (11) 76
Writ Petition No.2762/2012
Mr. R. S. Charpe for petitioner, Mr. C. V. Jagdale for respondents 1 and 2, Mr. S.M. Ghodeswar, AGP for respondent no.3
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
Diwakar Madhukarrao Malkapure, Rupesh s/o Diwakar Malkapure, The Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging Industrial Court order declaring unfair labour practice and directing payment of wages.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of Industrial Court order dated 6th September 2011 in Complaint (ULP) No. 262/2006.
Filing Reason
Petitioner challenged the Industrial Court order that declared unfair labour practice for not providing alternate employment to respondent no.1.
Previous Decisions
Industrial Court, Nagpur, in Complaint (ULP) No. 262/2006 on 6th September 2011, declared unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act and directed payment of wages from 2nd August 2002 till superannuation with costs of Rs. 2000.
Issues
Whether failure to provide alternate employment to a medically unfit employee constitutes unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Industrial Court order was erroneous.
Respondents supported the Industrial Court order.
Ratio Decidendi
Failure to provide alternate employment to an employee declared medically unfit for his current post amounts to unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.
Judgment Excerpts
The Industrial Court has declared that the Corporation is engaged in unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 by not providing alternate employment to respondent no.1.
Procedural History
Respondent no.1 filed Complaint (ULP) No. 262/2006 before the Industrial Court, Nagpur, which was allowed on 6th September 2011. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2762/2012 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the order. The High Court dismissed the petition on 12th November 2013.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Item 9 of Schedule IV
- Road Transport Act:
