Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Tata Memorial Centre, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and a public trust under the administrative control of Atomic Energy, Government of India, challenged an order dated 12th October, 2001 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No.1272 of 1993. The Industrial Court held that the petitioner had resorted to 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) and directed the petitioner to treat the date of birth of respondent No.2 (the original complainant No.2) as 31st August, 1937 and to treat him retired on completion of 60 years i.e. on 31st August, 1997, with further direction to make payment of wages and monetary benefits to respondent No.2 for the period during which he was not allowed to work. The facts reveal that respondent No.2 joined the services of the petitioner-hospital in the year 1966. The dispute arose regarding the correct date of birth of respondent No.2. The Industrial Court found that the petitioner had engaged in unfair labour practice by not accepting the corrected date of birth. The High Court, after hearing the rival parties, upheld the Industrial Court's order, confirming that the petitioner had indeed resorted to unfair labour practice. The court directed the petitioner to comply with the Industrial Court's directions, including treating the date of birth as 31st August, 1937 and retiring respondent No.2 on 31st August, 1997, and paying wages and monetary benefits for the period he was not allowed to work.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Item 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act - Date of Birth Dispute - The Industrial Court held that the petitioner-hospital had resorted to unfair labour practice by not accepting the corrected date of birth of the workman and directed to treat his date of birth as 31st August, 1937 and retire him on 31st August, 1997 with payment of wages for the period he was not allowed to work. (Paras 2, 3, 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in directing the petitioner to treat the date of birth of respondent No.2 as 31st August, 1937 and to treat him retired on completion of 60 years, and whether the petitioner had resorted to unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of the Industrial Court dated 12th October, 2001, directing the petitioner to treat the date of birth of respondent No.2 as 31st August, 1937 and to treat him retired on 31st August, 1997, and to make payment of wages and monetary benefits for the period he was not allowed to work.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Item 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act
- date of birth correction
- burden of proof
- estoppel
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (04) 62
Writ Petition No. 2988 of 2001
S.K. Talsania, senior counsel i/b. Mulla and Mulla & Craige Blunt & Caroe for the petitioner; Susheel Mahadeshwar for the respondents
Tata Memorial Hospital Kamgar Sanghatana and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Industrial Court in a complaint of unfair labour practice.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the Industrial Court's order directing correction of date of birth and payment of wages.
Filing Reason
The petitioner challenged the Industrial Court's finding of unfair labour practice and the directions regarding date of birth and retirement.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court, Mumbai, in Complaint (ULP) No.1272 of 1993, held that the petitioner had resorted to unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act and directed to treat the date of birth of respondent No.2 as 31st August, 1937 and retire him on 31st August, 1997 with payment of wages for the period he was not allowed to work.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in holding that the petitioner had resorted to unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.
Whether the Industrial Court's direction to treat the date of birth of respondent No.2 as 31st August, 1937 and to pay wages for the period he was not allowed to work was correct.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Industrial Court erred in its findings and that the date of birth as per records should be maintained.
The respondents supported the Industrial Court's order, contending that the petitioner had engaged in unfair labour practice by not accepting the corrected date of birth.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the Industrial Court's finding of unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act was justified, and the direction to correct the date of birth and pay wages for the period of non-employment was proper.
Judgment Excerpts
This petition is directed against the order dated 12th October, 2001 passed in Complaint (ULP) No.1272 of 1993 by the Industrial Court, Mumbai holding that the petitioner- hospital has resorted to unfair labour practice prescribed under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971
The Industrial Court directed to treat the date of birth of respondent No.2 (the original complainant No.2) as 31st August, 1937 and to treat him retired on completion of 60 years i.e. on 31st August, 1997 with further direction to make payment of wages and monetary benefits to respondent No.2 for the period during which he was not allowed to work.
Procedural History
The respondent No.2 filed Complaint (ULP) No.1272 of 1993 before the Industrial Court, Mumbai, alleging unfair labour practice. The Industrial Court passed an order on 12th October, 2001 in favour of the complainant. The petitioner challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No. 2988 of 2001 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The High Court reserved judgment on 1st March, 2006 and pronounced it on 28th April, 2006, dismissing the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Item 9 of Schedule IV
