Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ahmednagar Education Society, challenged an order of the Industrial Court at Ahmednagar dated 18.8.1994, which allowed the complaint filed by the respondent, Nagnath Ganpat Khandave, and granted him permanency and incidental benefits from 1989. The respondent was initially appointed as a part-time peon on 14.9.1983 after his father's retirement on 28.2.1983. He contended that he had been working as a full-time peon due to the growth of the institution, and that several junior employees were regularized while he was not. He filed Complaint (ULP) No.206 of 1987 under Items 5,6,9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The Industrial Court allowed the complaint, finding that the respondent was performing full-time duties and was entitled to permanency. The petitioner argued that the Industrial Court's order was illegal, suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record, and that the court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it. The petitioner also contended that the respondent remained a part-time peon even after 32 years. The High Court, exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 227, examined the record and found that the Industrial Court had considered the evidence and recorded a finding of fact that the respondent was performing full-time duties. The High Court held that this finding was not perverse and that the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to pass the order. The petition was dismissed, and the Industrial Court's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Permanency - Unfair Labour Practice - Items 5,6,9,10 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court granted permanency to a part-time peon who claimed he was performing full-time duties and was denied regularization while juniors were regularized - The High Court held that the Industrial Court's finding of fact that the employee was performing full-time duties was not perverse and that the petition under Article 227 did not warrant interference - Held that the Industrial Court had jurisdiction and the order was based on evidence (Paras 1-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court's order granting permanency to a part-time peon based on a finding that he was performing full-time duties was perverse or without jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order dated 18.8.1994 granting permanency to the respondent.
Law Points
- Permanency
- Unfair Labour Practice
- Part-time employee
- Full-time duties
- MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Schedule IV Items 5
- 6
- 9
- 10
- Industrial Court jurisdiction
- Writ jurisdiction limited to perversity
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (08) 5
WRIT PETITION NO. 3220 OF 1995
Shri Bedre V.S. for Petitioner, Shri Patil Ashok h/f Shri Upadhye V.N. for Respondent
The General Secretary, Ahmednagar Education Society
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Industrial Court granting permanency to a part-time peon.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the Industrial Court's order dated 18.8.1994 granting permanency to the respondent.
Filing Reason
Petitioner aggrieved by the Industrial Court's order allowing the complaint and granting permanency to the respondent.
Previous Decisions
Industrial Court at Ahmednagar allowed Complaint (ULP) No.206 of 1987 on 18.8.1994, granting permanency to the respondent from 1989.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court's order granting permanency to a part-time peon was perverse or without jurisdiction.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the impugned judgment is not legal, fair, and proper; suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record; the Industrial Court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it; the respondent was appointed as a part-time peon and continues as such even after 32 years.
Respondent contended that he was performing full-time duties and was entitled to permanency, and the Industrial Court's finding of fact was based on evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The Industrial Court's finding that the respondent was performing full-time duties was a finding of fact based on evidence and not perverse. The High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227, cannot interfere with such findings unless they are perverse or without jurisdiction. The Industrial Court had jurisdiction to pass the order under the MRTU & PULP Act.
Judgment Excerpts
The respondent is an employee of the petitioner. His father retired on 28.2.1983 and the respondent was engaged on 14.9.1983 as a part time Peon.
By the impugned judgment and order dated 18.8.1994, the Complaint was allowed and the respondent herein was granted permanency and benefits incidental thereto from 1989.
The Industrial Court has considered the evidence and recorded a finding of fact that the respondent was performing full time duties. This finding is not perverse.
Procedural History
The respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No.206 of 1987 before the Industrial Court at Ahmednagar in 1987. The Industrial Court allowed the complaint on 18.8.1994. The petitioner filed the present writ petition on 18.7.1995, which was admitted on the same day. The High Court dismissed the petition on 13.8.2015.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Schedule IV Items 5, 6, 9, 10
