Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by the Pune Municipal Corporation and its officers against an order of the Industrial Court, Pune, which allowed a complaint filed by the respondent, Dhananjay Prabhakar Gokhale, under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The respondent was appointed as a daily wage workman (Baller) in the Corporation's printing press between 1983 and 1986. He alleged that despite completing 240 days of continuous service in a vacant and permanent post, he was continued as a temporary employee without permanency benefits, constituting an unfair labour practice. During the pendency of proceedings, a settlement was reached in September 1989 between the Corporation and the employees' union, providing that employees who complete five years of continuous service would be entitled to permanency. Pursuant to this settlement, the respondent was granted permanency with effect from 10-1-1991. However, the Industrial Court, by order dated 28-9-1994, directed the appellants to provide permanency benefits to the respondent with effect from 28-9-1987, i.e., from an earlier date. The appellants challenged this order before the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.3429 of 1995, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge on 29-11-2001. The present Letters Patent Appeal was filed against that dismissal. The appellants contended that the settlement of September 1989 governed the grant of permanency and that the respondent was only entitled to permanency after five years of service. The respondent argued that the settlement did not preclude his claim for earlier permanency based on the completion of 240 days in a permanent post. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising R.M.S. Khandeparkar and Roshan Dalvi, JJ., heard the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the orders of the Industrial Court and the learned single Judge. The court held that the settlement did not bar the respondent's claim for permanency from an earlier date, as he had already fulfilled the conditions for permanency under Item 6 of Schedule IV. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Permanency - Item 6 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The respondent, a daily wage workman, claimed permanency after completing 240 days of continuous service in a vacant permanent post. The Industrial Court allowed the complaint and directed permanency from 28-9-1987. The employer challenged the order, arguing that a settlement of September 1989 provided permanency only after five years of service. Held that the settlement did not bar the claim for earlier permanency as the respondent had already completed 240 days and the post was permanent. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in granting permanency to the respondent with effect from 28-9-1987 despite a subsequent settlement providing permanency after five years of continuous service.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Item 6 Schedule IV
- permanency
- daily wage workman
- continuous service
- 240 days
- settlement
- MRTU & PULP Act
