Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dattatraya Raghunath Kobarne, was a driver with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) since 1986. On 8.4.2008, he suffered a paralytic stroke while on duty but skillfully avoided an accident. He was on medical leave until 23.5.2008. Upon reporting for duty, he was directed to obtain a fitness certificate from the Civil Surgeon. The Civil Surgeon referred him to Sasoon General Hospital, Pune, which on 4.8.2008 opined that he was fit for table work but not for driving duties. Despite submitting this certificate, the MSRTC refused to allot duties, insisting on a certificate in a specific format which was not provided to the petitioner. The petitioner served a notice on 10.11.2008 and filed Complaint (ULP) No. 98 of 2008 on 8.12.2008 before the Industrial Court. An interim order on 5.9.2009 directed MSRTC to provide alternate work, which was finally allotted on 6.1.2010 after the High Court dismissed MSRTC's writ petition. The Industrial Court partly allowed the complaint on 3.1.2012, declaring that the respondent had engaged in unfair labour practice but denied back wages for the period from 23.5.2008 to 9.7.2010. The petitioner challenged this denial. The High Court held that the employer's insistence on a specific format without providing it was unjustified, and the petitioner was entitled to full back wages for the entire period of forced idleness. The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Industrial Court's order to the extent it denied back wages, and directed MSRTC to pay the petitioner his full salary for the period from 23.5.2008 to 9.7.2010 within eight weeks.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Alternate Employment - Sections 30, 31 of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The petitioner, a driver, suffered a paralytic stroke and was declared unfit for driving but fit for table work by a government hospital. The employer refused to allot alternate duties until a certificate in a specific format was produced, which was not supplied earlier. The Industrial Court partly allowed the complaint but denied back wages for the period before the interim order. The High Court held that the employer's failure to provide alternate work despite the medical certificate constituted an unfair labour practice, and the petitioner was entitled to full back wages for the entire period of forced idleness, as the employer could not shift the burden of obtaining a certificate in a specific format onto the employee without providing the format. (Paras 4-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to full back wages for the period from 23.5.2008 to 9.7.2010 when he was not allotted any duties despite being willing to work and having a medical certificate declaring him fit for table work.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Industrial Court's order to the extent it denied back wages, and directed the respondent to pay the petitioner his full salary for the period from 23.5.2008 to 9.7.2010 within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Unfair Labour Practice
- Back Wages
- Alternate Employment
- Medical Unfitness
- Employer's Obligation
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (09) 5
WRIT PETITION NO. 5798 OF 2012
Shri Barde Parag Vijay for Petitioner, Shri Deshmukh B.S. for Respondent
Dattatraya Raghunath Kobarne
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmednagar Division, Through its Divisional Controller; Depot Manager, Shrirampur Depot, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition challenging the Industrial Court's order partly allowing complaint but denying back wages for a specific period.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought full back wages for the period from 23.5.2008 to 9.7.2010 during which he was not allotted duties.
Filing Reason
The Industrial Court partly allowed the complaint but denied back wages for the period before the interim order, which the petitioner challenged.
Previous Decisions
Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 98 of 2008 partly allowed the complaint on 3.1.2012, declaring unfair labour practice but denying back wages for 23.5.2008 to 9.7.2010.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to full back wages for the period from 23.5.2008 to 9.7.2010 when he was not allotted duties despite being willing to work and having a medical certificate declaring him fit for table work.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he was willing to work and had a medical certificate from Sasoon Hospital declaring him fit for table work, but the respondent refused to allot duties insisting on a certificate in a specific format which was not provided to him.
Respondent argued that the petitioner did not produce the medical certificate in the required format and therefore could not be allotted duties.
Ratio Decidendi
An employer cannot insist on a medical certificate in a specific format without providing that format to the employee. Once a valid medical certificate is produced, the employer must provide alternate work if the employee is unfit for his original post. Failure to do so constitutes an unfair labour practice, and the employee is entitled to full back wages for the period of forced idleness.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 3.1.2012, delivered by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 98 of 2008. Grievance is that though the complaint has been allowed, it has only been partly allowed and the petitioner has not been given his salary for the period 23.5.2008 till 9.7.2010.
The Civil Surgeon referred the petitioner on 9.7.2008 for a medical examination to the Sasoon General Hospital, Pune. By its report dated 4.8.2008, addressed to the Divisional Controller of the respondent, the Sasoon General Hospital opined that the petitioner, who had suffered a left MCA infarct, had improved considerably and in view of the said stroke, he was fit to perform table work and not fit to discharge duties as a Driver.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No. 98 of 2008 on 8.12.2008 before the Industrial Court. An interim order was passed on 5.9.2009 directing MSRTC to provide alternate work. MSRTC filed Writ Petition No.7808 of 2009, which was dismissed by the High Court on 6.1.2010 after MSRTC stated it would provide alternate work. The Industrial Court partly allowed the complaint on 3.1.2012. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition on 20.9.2012.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act): 30, 31
