Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sunil Sherekar, was employed as a Junior Engineer on daily wages with the Nagar Parishad, Yavatmal, from 15-11-1991. The regular Junior Engineer, V.D. Choudhari, retired on 30-6-1992, after which the petitioner worked as Incharge Junior Engineer. He sought regularisation of his services, having completed 240 days of service in the preceding 12 months. Instead of regularising him, the respondent terminated his services with effect from 1-6-1994. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Labour Court under the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, alleging unfair labour practice. The Labour Court allowed the complaint on 30-12-1995, directing reinstatement with back wages. The respondent Municipal Council preferred a revision before the Industrial Court, and the petitioner also filed a revision challenging the finding that there was no breach of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Court allowed the respondent's revision and dismissed the complaint, holding that the petitioner was not a 'workman' and that there was no unfair labour practice. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the petitioner was a workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, and that his termination without notice or compensation violated Section 25F. Additionally, the respondent did not follow the principle of 'last come first go' under Section 25G, as the petitioner was the only daily wage employee and was terminated while others with less service were retained. The High Court held that the Industrial Court erred in reversing the Labour Court's findings, as the termination was illegal and constituted an unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Industrial Court's order, and restored the Labour Court's order of reinstatement with full back wages.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Termination of Daily Wage Employee - Sections 25F, 25G, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Item 1, Schedule IV, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The petitioner, a daily wage Junior Engineer, was terminated without notice or compensation after completing 240 days of service, and without following the rule of 'last come first go' under Section 25G. The Labour Court found the termination illegal and ordered reinstatement with back wages. The Industrial Court reversed this, holding that the petitioner was not a 'workman' and that there was no unfair labour practice. The High Court held that the Industrial Court erred in reversing the Labour Court's findings, as the petitioner was a workman and the termination violated Sections 25F and 25G, constituting an unfair labour practice. The High Court restored the Labour Court's order of reinstatement with full back wages. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the petitioner's services without following the procedure under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and without observing seniority under Section 25G of the said Act constitutes an unfair labour practice under the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, and whether the Industrial Court erred in setting aside the Labour Court's order of reinstatement with back wages.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Industrial Court, and restored the order of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the petitioner with full back wages.
Law Points
- Termination of a daily wage employee who has completed 240 days of service without complying with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 is illegal
- Violation of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 regarding seniority in retrenchment constitutes unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act
- 1971
- Reinstatement with back wages is the appropriate remedy for illegal termination
