Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Amravati University, challenged the judgment and order of the Industrial Court, Amravati, in Complaint ULP No.912 of 1994. The Industrial Court had directed the University to maintain a seniority list including the name of the respondent, Milind Bhimrao Patil, and to reemploy him within 15 days from 5.8.2004, as long as employees junior to him were retained. The court also clarified that the respondent had no right to claim regularization in future. The order was based on a finding that the University was engaged in unfair labour practice under Item 5 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The High Court noted that in an identical case, Writ Petition No.3653 of 2002, it had confirmed a similar order directing the University to provide work to complainants as per their standing in the seniority list. The court observed that there was a continuing cause of action for daily wage workers with continuous service, and they should be provided work according to seniority without favoritism or victimization. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition, directing the University to include the respondent's name in the seniority list at an appropriate serial number and provide work as per his standing.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Item 5 Schedule IV MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Seniority List - The Industrial Court found the petitioner engaged in unfair labour practice by failing to maintain a seniority list and not reemploying the complainant. The High Court upheld the order directing inclusion in seniority list and reemployment as per standing, relying on an earlier decision in Writ Petition No.3653 of 2002. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court's order directing the petitioner to include the respondent's name in the seniority list and reemploy him was justified under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioner to include the respondent's name in the seniority list at an appropriate serial number and provide work as per his standing in the seniority list.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Item 5 Schedule IV MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- seniority list
- daily wage workers
- continuing cause of action
- reemployment
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (07) 139
Writ Petition No.4484 of 2004
Mr. S.G. Loney for petitioner, Mr. N.R. Saboo for respondent
Milind s/o. Bhimrao Patil
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging Industrial Court order in an unfair labour practice complaint.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the Industrial Court order directing inclusion in seniority list and reemployment.
Filing Reason
Petitioner challenged the Industrial Court's finding of unfair labour practice and the consequential directions.
Previous Decisions
Industrial Court, Amravati, in Complaint ULP No.912 of 1994, directed petitioner to maintain seniority list including respondent's name and reemploy him within 15 days from 5.8.2004.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court's order was justified under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued against the order; respondent submitted that there is continuing cause of action and relied on earlier decision in Writ Petition No.3653 of 2002.
Ratio Decidendi
The Industrial Court's finding of unfair labour practice under Item 5 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, was upheld. Daily wage workers with continuous service have a continuing cause of action to be provided work according to seniority without favoritism or victimization.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the Judgment and Order passed in Complaint ULP No.912 of 1994 by the Industrial Court, Amravati whereby the petitioner was directed to maintain seniority list inclusive of name of the complainant and to reemploy the complainant within a period of 15 days from the date of order i.e. 5.8.2004 so long as the employees junior to the respondent are retained in service.
It is submitted that there is continuing cause of action for daily wage workers with continuous service according to law and they should be provided work as per their standing in the seniority list, without any favoritism and without any victimisation.
Procedural History
The Industrial Court, Amravati, passed an order on 5.8.2004 in Complaint ULP No.912 of 1994. The petitioner challenged that order by filing Writ Petition No.4484 of 2004 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The High Court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 24.7.2014.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Item 5 of Schedule IV
