Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, J.K. Education Society, an educational institution, challenged the judgment and order of the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.614 of 2000. The Industrial Court had held that the petitioner-employer was engaged in an unfair labour practice under Item 5 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The Industrial Court directed the petitioner to cease and desist from such unfair labour practice and to grant the benefits of the Government Resolution at Exhibit 40 dated 13-5-1999 to the complainants, who were non-teaching staff of the institution. The petitioner-employer argued that the Industrial Court erred in its findings. However, the High Court, after considering the submissions, found no merit in the petition. The High Court noted that the Industrial Court had correctly applied the law and that the employer's failure to implement the Government Resolution constituted an unfair labour practice. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order. The decision reinforces the obligation of employers to implement government resolutions and not to engage in unfair labour practices against employees.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Item 5 Schedule IV MRTU & PULP Act - Government Resolution Benefits - The Industrial Court held that the employer's failure to implement Government Resolution dated 13-5-1999 granting benefits to non-teaching staff amounted to an unfair labour practice under Item 5 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The court directed the employer to cease and desist from such practice and to grant the benefits to the complainants. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner-employer's failure to grant benefits of Government Resolution dated 13-5-1999 to the complainants (non-teaching staff) constitutes an unfair labour practice under Item 5 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's judgment and order dated 14-2009 in Complaint (ULP) No.614 of 2000.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Item 5 Schedule IV MRTU & PULP Act
- Government Resolution benefits
- Non-teaching staff
- Employer's obligation
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (10) 150
Writ Petition No.1876 of 2009
Shri Shashank V. Manohar for Petitioner, Shri Rohit Deo for Respondent Nos.1 to 32
Shri Sunil Uaike and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the judgment and order of the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.614 of 2000.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the Industrial Court's order holding it guilty of unfair labour practice and directing it to grant benefits of Government Resolution dated 13-5-1999.
Filing Reason
The Industrial Court held that the petitioner-employer engaged in unfair labour practice under Item 5 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act by not granting benefits of Government Resolution dated 13-5-1999 to the complainants (non-teaching staff).
Previous Decisions
Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.614 of 2000 held the petitioner guilty of unfair labour practice and directed to cease and desist and grant benefits of Government Resolution dated 13-5-1999.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court correctly held that the petitioner-employer engaged in unfair labour practice under Item 5 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act.
Whether the direction to grant benefits of Government Resolution dated 13-5-1999 to the complainants is sustainable.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Industrial Court erred in its findings.
Respondents supported the Industrial Court's order.
Ratio Decidendi
Failure of an employer to implement a Government Resolution granting benefits to employees constitutes an unfair labour practice under Item 5 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, and the employer must cease such practice and grant the benefits.
Judgment Excerpts
In Complaint (ULP) No.614 of 2000, the Industrial Court, by its judgment and order dated 142009, has held that the petitioneremployer is engaged in an unfair labour practice under Item 5 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
The direction is given to the petitioneremployer to cease and desist from such unfair labour practice.
It is the further direction given to the petitioneremployer to grant benefits of the Government Resolution at Exhibit 40 dated 1351999 to the complainants in their...
Procedural History
The Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.614 of 2000 passed judgment and order dated 14-2009 holding the petitioner guilty of unfair labour practice. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1876 of 2009 before the Bombay High Court challenging that order. The High Court dismissed the petition on 05-10-2015.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Item 5 of Schedule IV
