Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by the State Government and its officers challenging an order of the Industrial Court, Nagpur, which had declared that the employer had committed an unfair labour practice under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, and directed the absorption of six employees as Canal Inspectors from the date of complaint. The employees had worked as labourers from the late 1970s or early 1980s, completed training for the post of Canal Inspector in 1985, passed the departmental examination, and from January 1986 they were assigned the duties of Canal Inspectors on a continuous basis. Despite vacancies existing and a proposal for promotion being forwarded, no appointment orders were issued. The employer promoted one S.S. Choudhari as Canal Inspector, who, it was alleged, had not passed the examination, while the respondents were ignored. The Industrial Court, after considering oral and documentary evidence including work distribution charts and testimonies of officers who admitted assigning Canal Inspector duties, held that the employer had committed unfair labour practice and directed absorption. The employer, in its writ petition, contended that public employment requires sanctioned posts and a proper selection process, that the employees did not meet the Recruitment Rules, and that comparisons with Choudhari were invalid. It relied on judgments prohibiting regularisation of temporary employees without due process. The employees supported the Industrial Court’s order and invoked the principle of equal pay for equal work, citing Sakhaullah’s case. The High Court, exercising limited jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, examined whether the Industrial Court’s order suffered from any error of jurisdiction or perversity. It noted that the Industrial Court’s findings—that the employees had completed training, passed the departmental examination, and actually performed the higher duties—were based on evidence and were not perverse. The Court distinguished the case from general regularisation cases, observing that the direction was not to regularise temporary employment but to absorb the employees in the very posts they were already working on, with the necessary qualifications and available vacancies. The High Court held that the Industrial Court had the jurisdiction under the ULP Act to correct the employer’s unilateral action and ensure equal pay for equal work. The petition was consequently dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Labour Law – Unfair Labour Practice – Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 – The Industrial Court has jurisdiction to examine unilateral action of employer and grant relief to employees denied appointment/absorption despite completing training, passing departmental examination, and actually performing duties of the higher post. Here, the employer admitted the employees’ training and exam, yet failed to absorb them as Canal Inspectors while promoting another employee, and the evidence showed the employees were working as Canal Inspectors, establishing unfair labour practice. Held that the Industrial Court’s order of absorption was legally justified (Paras 4, 6, 9). B) Service Law – Equal Pay for Equal Work – The principle that employees performing higher duties should receive corresponding pay, as recognized in Sakhaullah v. Visvesvaraya Regional College of Engineering, 1999 (1) Mh. L.J. 605, was violated where the respondents were assigned the work of Canal Inspectors but paid as labourers. The Industrial Court’s direction to pay the higher scale from the date of complaint was upheld (Para 5). C) Constitutional Law – Writ Jurisdiction – Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution do not permit reappreciation of evidence; interference with findings of fact by the High Court is warranted only if they are perverse or based on no evidence. The Industrial Court’s appreciation of oral and documentary evidence that the employees worked as Canal Inspectors was rational and not perverse, precluding interference (Paras 8, 9, 12). D) Service Law – Regularisation versus Absorption – The direction to ‘appoint/absorb’ respondents as Canal Inspectors is distinguishable from regularisation of temporary employees without sanction or selection; it was a recognition of the employees’ actual performance of higher duties and their qualifications for the post, with vacancies available. Judgments in Mahatma Fule Agricultural University v. Nasik Zilla Sheth Kamgar Union, (2001) 7 SCC 346 and A. Umarani v. Registrar, (2004) 7 SCC 112, dealing with regularisation of ad hoc/temporary employees, were held inapplicable on facts (Paras 7, 10, 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was legally right in directing the employer to appoint/absorb the respondents as Canal Inspectors under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, considering the principles of public employment and the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court’s order. Held that the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to examine unilateral action under ULP Act and grant relief; findings of fact were based on evidence and not perverse; absorption was ordered not as regularisation of temporary employees but as recognition of actual performance of higher duties; petition dismissed with no costs.
Law Points
- unfair labour practice under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act
- jurisdiction of Industrial Court to examine unilateral action of employer
- equal pay for equal work
- absorption based on actual duties and qualifications
- distinction between absorption and regularisation
- limited scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227
- findings of fact not perverse cannot be interfered
