Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Municipal Council, Achalpur, challenged the judgment and order dated 11th September 2007 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Amravati, in Complaint ULP No. 743 of 1996. The Industrial Court had directed the Municipal Council to pay wages as non-matric clerk to respondent no. 1, Tolaram Tilakdas Meghwani, for the period during which he actually worked as Octroi Clerk. Respondent no. 1 was initially appointed as a Peon in 1964. In 1969, the Municipal Council directed him to work as Octroi Clerk, but failed to pay wages and privileges applicable to non-matric clerks. He alleged unfair labour practice under items 5, 6, and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Industrial Court, relying on admissions in cross-examination of the petitioner's witness and documentary evidence (exhibits 26 and 56), found that respondent no. 1 had worked as a clerk during the periods 1.2.1994 to 26.5.1995 and 31.3.1998 to 30.4.1999, but was not paid remuneration for that work. The Municipal Council argued that backdoor entry to a clerk post is not sanctioned by law and that appointments must comply with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, citing State of Orissa v. Mamta Mohanty. The High Court rejected this argument, holding that the Industrial Court's order was based on evidence of actual work performed and that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' applies. The court noted that the Municipal Council had admitted that respondent no. 1 worked as a clerk and was not paid wages for that work. The High Court found no perversity or illegality in the Industrial Court's order and dismissed the writ petition, directing the Municipal Council to pay wages as per the impugned order.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Equal Pay for Equal Work - Items 5, 6, 9 of Schedule IV, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court directed the Municipal Council to pay wages as non-matric clerk to a peon who was directed to work as Octroi Clerk for specific periods, based on admission in cross-examination and documentary evidence (exhibits 26 and 56) showing actual work performed. The High Court upheld the order, holding that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' applies and that the employer cannot avoid payment for work actually done merely because the initial appointment was irregular. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Municipal Council indulged in unfair labour practice by failing to pay wages for the work of Octroi Clerk to a Peon who was directed to perform such duties, and whether the Industrial Court's order directing payment of wages for actual work done is sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order directing the Municipal Council to pay wages as non-matric clerk to respondent no. 1 for the period he actually worked as Octroi Clerk.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Equal pay for equal work
- Backdoor entry
- Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act
- 1971
- Schedule IV items 5
- 6
- 9
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (06) 83
Writ Petition No. 101 of 2008
Mr S. G. Loney for petitioner, Mr J. B. Kasat for respondent no. 1, Mr D. M. Kale, Asst. Government Pleader for respondents 2 & 3
The Municipal Council, Achalpur, through its Chief Officer
Tolaram Tilakdas Meghwani, Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Mumbai, The Hon’ble Member, Industrial Court, Amravati
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging Industrial Court order directing payment of wages for work done as clerk.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner Municipal Council sought to quash the Industrial Court's order directing payment of wages to respondent no. 1.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that the Industrial Court erred in directing payment of wages for work done as clerk despite the appointment being irregular and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Previous Decisions
Industrial Court, Amravati, in Complaint ULP No. 743 of 1996, directed the Municipal Council to pay wages as non-matric clerk to respondent no. 1 for the period he actually worked as Octroi Clerk.
Issues
Whether the Municipal Council indulged in unfair labour practice by failing to pay wages for the work of Octroi Clerk to a Peon who was directed to perform such duties.
Whether the Industrial Court's order directing payment of wages for actual work done is sustainable despite the alleged irregularity in appointment.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that backdoor entry to a clerk post is not sanctioned by law and that appointments must comply with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, citing State of Orissa v. Mamta Mohanty.
Respondent no. 1 contended that he actually worked as Octroi Clerk and was not paid wages for that work, constituting unfair labour practice.
Ratio Decidendi
The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' applies when an employee is directed to perform higher duties and actually performs them; the employer cannot avoid payment for work actually done merely because the initial appointment was irregular. The Industrial Court's order based on evidence of actual work performed is sustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
It appears that the learned Member of Industrial Court was guided by the admission in the course of cross-examination of the witness examined by petitioner as well as documentary evidence in the form of charts (exhibits 26 and 56) before the Court.
It is also clearly admitted position on record that complainant was not given any remuneration for having worked on the post of clerk.
The learned Member of the Industrial Court while passing the impugned order held that petitioner Municipal Council was liable to pay wages to the complainant since he had worked as clerk in Octroi Department during the period between 31.3.1998 to 30.4.1999 as per exhibit 56.
Procedural History
Respondent no. 1 filed Complaint ULP No. 743 of 1996 before the Industrial Court, Amravati, alleging unfair labour practice. The Industrial Court allowed the complaint on 11th September 2007, directing the Municipal Council to pay wages as non-matric clerk. The Municipal Council challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No. 101 of 2008 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which dismissed the petition on 18th June 2014.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Schedule IV, Items 5, 6, 9
- Constitution of India: Articles 14, 16
