Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vivekanand Rugnalaya, Latur, a hospital management, challenged the judgment and order dated 13/11/2013 of the Industrial Court, Latur, which allowed Complaint (ULP) No.130/2011 filed by the respondent, Ganga w/o Ganesh Alane, a sweeper employed by the petitioner. The Industrial Court declared that the management had engaged in unfair labour practice under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act). It set aside the management's order dated 25/08/2011 suspending the respondent for three days without salary and directed refund of Rs.50 deducted from her salary towards a 'Gangajali' fund. The management argued that the suspension was imposed after hearing the respondent under the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and the deduction was part of a voluntary scheme created under a settlement dated 02/08/2011 signed with the workers' union under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The High Court found that the Industrial Court had erred in interfering with the disciplinary action, as the suspension was validly imposed after due process. Regarding the deduction, the High Court noted that the Gangajali fund was a welfare scheme voluntarily agreed upon by the workers, and the deduction of Rs.50 per month was not an unfair labour practice. The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Industrial Court's order, and dismissed the complaint. The court emphasized that the management's actions were within its rights under the standing orders and the settlement, and the Industrial Court had exceeded its jurisdiction.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 - Disciplinary Action - The Industrial Court set aside a three-day suspension and a Rs.50 deduction from salary, holding it as unfair labour practice. The High Court reversed, finding that the suspension was validly imposed under Model Standing Orders after hearing the employee, and the deduction was pursuant to a settlement under Section 2(p) r/w 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Held that the Industrial Court erred in interfering with the management's disciplinary action and the voluntary deduction scheme. (Paras 1-10) B) Industrial Law - Settlement - Section 2(p) r/w 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Gangajali Fund - The management created a money bank called 'Gangajali' with monthly contributions of Rs.50 per worker, based on a settlement dated 02/08/2011. The deduction was voluntary and for the benefit of workers. Held that such deductions are permissible and do not constitute unfair labour practice. (Paras 6-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suspension of the respondent for three days and deduction of Rs.50 towards Gangajali fund constituted unfair labour practice under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the judgment and order dated 13/11/2013 of the Industrial Court, Latur, and dismissed Complaint (ULP) No.130/2011.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act
- 1971
- Model Standing Orders under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act
- 1946
- Settlement under Section 2(p) r/w 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Disciplinary action
- Deduction from wages
- Gangajali fund
