Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Ram Pyarelal Khicher and Sunita Raju Paisadeli, were employed as sweepers by the Municipal Council, Ramtek. Ram was appointed on 8.12.1994 and Sunita on 1.9.1994. They were terminated by an order dated 31st March 1995, served on 3.4.1995, without any show cause notice or domestic inquiry. They filed complaints under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) before the Industrial Court, Nagpur, alleging unfair labour practices under Item 5 and 9 of Schedule IV. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaints by a common order dated 29th June 2004. The petitioners then filed writ petitions in the Bombay High Court. The High Court found that the termination was in breach of the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and violated principles of natural justice. The court held that the employer engaged in unfair labour practice. The court set aside the termination and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service but denied back wages, noting that the petitioners were daily-wage employees and there was no evidence that they were not gainfully employed elsewhere. The petitions were allowed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Termination of Service - Unfair Labour Practice - Termination of daily-wage sweepers by Municipal Council without domestic inquiry and without following Model Standing Orders under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 - Held that such termination amounts to unfair labour practice under Item 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Petitioners entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service but not back wages due to daily-wage nature and lack of evidence of gainful employment (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether termination of the petitioners without holding a domestic inquiry and without following the Model Standing Orders amounts to unfair labour practice under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the termination order dated 31st March 1995, and directed reinstatement of the petitioners with continuity of service but without back wages.
Law Points
- Termination without domestic inquiry violates Model Standing Orders under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act
- 1946
- Unfair labour practice under Item 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Reinstatement with continuity but no back wages for daily-wage employees
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (07) 142
Writ Petition No.4928 of 2004 with Writ Petition No.4931 of 2004
Mr. S.D. Thakur for the Petitioner
Ram s/o. Pyarelal Khicher and Sunita w/o. Raju Paisadeli
Municipal Council, Ramtek through its Chief Officer and The Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging the order of the Industrial Court dismissing complaints of unfair labour practice against the Municipal Council for terminating the petitioners' services without inquiry.
Remedy Sought
Setting aside termination order, reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.
Filing Reason
Termination of service without show cause notice or domestic inquiry, in breach of Model Standing Orders and principles of natural justice.
Previous Decisions
Industrial Court dismissed the complaints by common order dated 29th June 2004.
Issues
Whether the termination of the petitioners without holding a domestic inquiry and without following the Model Standing Orders amounts to unfair labour practice under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they were appointed in clear vacancies, rendered continuous service of three months, became permanent employees, but were terminated without opportunity to show cause or domestic inquiry, violating Standing Orders and natural justice.
Respondents did not appear to contest the petitions.
Ratio Decidendi
Termination of daily-wage employees without holding a domestic inquiry and without following the Model Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 constitutes an unfair labour practice under Item 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. Such employees are entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, but back wages may be denied considering the daily-wage nature of employment and lack of evidence of gainful employment.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners have questioned their termination order dated 31st March, 1995 served on them on 3.4.1995 by the respondent/Municipal Council, Ramtek.
According to the petitioners it was in breach of the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946.
It was alleged that the respondent/employer were engaged in unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item Nos. 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.
The facts, briefly stated, are thus : Complainant Sunita ... was appointed as a Sweeper on 1.9.1994. Complainant Geeta ... and Complainant Ram ... were appointed as Sweepers on 8.12.1994 in clear vacancy.
the respondent, without giving them an opportunity to show cause and without any domestic inquiry, in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the Standing Orders, terminated their service.
Procedural History
The petitioners were terminated on 31.3.1995 (served 3.4.1995). They filed complaints under Section 28 of MRTU & PULP Act before the Industrial Court, Nagpur Bench. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaints by common order dated 29.6.2004. The petitioners then filed the present writ petitions in the Bombay High Court, which were allowed on 17.7.2014.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946: Model Standing Orders
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Section 28, Schedule IV Items 5 and 9
