Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nagpur Mahila Nagri Sahakari Bank Limited, a cooperative bank, challenged the judgment and order dated 29.10.2014 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint ULP No. 238 of 2005. The respondent, Miss. Smita Narhari Khode, had filed a complaint alleging unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (MRTU and PULP Act). The Industrial Court allowed the complaint, directing the petitioner to make the respondent permanent in service with effect from the date of her appointment and to pay all monetary benefits applicable to permanent employees. The Industrial Court held that the Model Standing Orders framed under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act (BIR Act) applied to the establishment by virtue of Section 35(5) of that Act. It found that there was no provision in the Model Standing Orders for making clerical or supervisory appointments on a contract basis. The appointment of the respondent as a clerk should have been on probation for three months, after which she should have been confirmed or discontinued. Since she was continued beyond the probation period, she was entitled to permanency and equal benefits. The petitioner argued that Clause 29 of the Model Standing Orders permitted contract employment and that the bank was not an industrial establishment under the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The High Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order. The court found no merit in the petitioner's contentions and affirmed that the Model Standing Orders applied and that the respondent was entitled to permanency and monetary benefits from the date of her appointment.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Model Standing Orders - Applicability to Cooperative Banks - Section 35(5) Bombay Industrial Relations Act - The Industrial Court held that the provisions of Model Standing Orders are applicable to the establishment by virtue of subsection (5) of section 35 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and there is no provision under the Model Standing Orders to make any clerical or supervisory appointment on contract basis. (Paras 2-3) B) Industrial Law - Permanent Employment - Probation Period - Model Standing Orders - The appointment of the respondent-complainant to the post of clerk should have been on probation for a period of three months as per Standing Orders, at the end of which either she is to be confirmed as permanent employee or to be discontinued on account of unsatisfactory performance. (Para 3) C) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Items 5, 6, 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act - The complaint filed by the respondent-complainant invoking Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U and P.U.L.P Act has been allowed directing the petitioner-employer to make the respondent-complainant permanent in service with effect from the date of her appointment and pay all monetary benefits applicable to the permanent employee of the petitioner Bank. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of a clerk on contract basis in a cooperative bank is permissible under the Model Standing Orders framed under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order dated 29.10.2014 directing the petitioner to make the respondent permanent in service with effect from the date of her appointment and to pay all monetary benefits applicable to permanent employees.
Law Points
- Model Standing Orders apply to cooperative banks by virtue of Section 35(5) of Bombay Industrial Relations Act
- No provision for contract appointment of clerical staff under Model Standing Orders
- Appointment must be on probation for three months leading to confirmation or discontinuation
