Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ petition filed by the Superintending Engineer, Nagpur Irrigation Circle, and the State of Maharashtra challenging an order of the Industrial Court dated 13.01.2006. The Industrial Court, in Complaint (ULPN) No. 248 of 2000, declared that the petitioners (employer) engaged in an unfair labour practice under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (MRTU and PULP Act). The court directed the petitioners to consider a proposal for bringing the respondents (employees) on the Converted Regular Temporary Establishment (CRTE) as Clerks from 1982, the date they were brought on CRTE as Mazdoors. The respondents were initially appointed as Mazdoors on various dates in 1977 and were later granted CRTE status as Mazdoors under the Kalelkar Award with effect from 1982. They claimed that despite being designated as Mazdoors, they actually performed clerical duties from their initial appointment until completion of five years of continuous service. The Industrial Court relied on a proposal (Exh.22A) dated 02.12.1994 sent by the first petitioner to the second petitioner, which recommended bringing the respondents on CRTE as Clerks from 1982. The High Court noted that the question of whether the respondents worked as Clerks was a question of fact requiring pleading and proof. While there was pleading, the only evidence produced was the proposal; no other evidence was brought to establish that the respondents actually performed clerical work for five years. However, the court observed that the employer failed to lead evidence to disprove the claim. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Industrial Court's order was based on the employer's own proposal and did not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act - Burden of Proof - The Industrial Court declared that the employer engaged in unfair labour practice by not considering the proposal to bring employees on CRTE as Clerks. The Court held that the employer's own proposal (Exh.22A) was sufficient evidence to support the employees' claim, and the employer failed to lead evidence to disprove that the employees worked as Clerks. (Paras 1-4) B) Industrial Law - Kalelkar Award - Converted Regular Temporary Establishment (CRTE) - Entitlement to Clerical Post - The employees, appointed as Mazdoors, claimed they actually performed clerical duties for over 5 years. The Industrial Court directed the employer to consider the proposal for CRTE as Clerks from 1982. The High Court upheld this, noting that the employer's own proposal recommended such action. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in granting a declaration of unfair labour practice and directing the employer to consider the proposal for bringing the complainants on CRTE as Clerks from 1982, based on the employer's own proposal.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order dated 13.01.2006. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act
- Kalelkar Award
- Converted Regular Temporary Establishment (CRTE)
- burden of proof on employer to disprove claim of actual work performed
