Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution against the Industrial Court's order dated 23.12.1999 which confirmed the Labour Court's dismissal of complaints under the MRTU & PULP Act. The petitioners, 16 female packers, alleged that they were continuously employed since 27.08.1985 but kept as temporary workers, given artificial breaks, and denied permanency and benefits. They claimed that their termination on 28.07.1994 was victimisation. The respondents contended that the complaints were not maintainable under Item 1 of Schedule IV, that the employees were engaged under specific contracts for fixed terms, and that the termination was by efflux of time under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court found that the complaints did not fall under Item 1, that the termination was not retrenchment as each contract was for three months and ended naturally, and that the complainants had not completed 240 days of continuous service. The Industrial Court upheld this. The High Court's judgment was delivered on 26.10.2016, but the available text does not contain the Court's analysis or final decision.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the complaints filed under Item 1 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act were maintainable; whether the termination of temporary workers was illegal and constituted retrenchment; whether the settlement dated 08.02.1994 was binding.
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (10) 55
WRIT PETITION NO.1103 OF 2000
For Petitioners: Y. M. Pendse; For Respondents: S. K. Talsania, Senior Advocate i/by R. V. Paranjape
M/s. Rohini S. Kurghode & 15 Ors.
M/s. E. Merck (I) Limited & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the Industrial Court's dismissal of revision applications against the Labour Court's judgment dismissing complaints of unfair labour practices under MRTU & PULP Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought reinstatement with full backwages, permanency, and benefits equivalent to permanent employees, and restraining the respondent from engaging fresh hands.
Filing Reason
Termination of services on 28.07.1994 was alleged to be illegal victimisation due to demands for permanency and benefits, despite long continuous temporary service.
Previous Decisions
The Labour Court, Thane, dismissed the complaints on 08.09.1997. The Industrial Court, Thane, dismissed the revision applications on 23.12.1999.
Issues
Whether the complaints under Item 1(a), (b), (d), (f) of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act were maintainable
Whether the termination of the temporary employees constituted unfair labour practice
Whether the termination was retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act or fell within the exception under Section 2(oo)(bb)
Whether the settlement dated 08.02.1994 was binding on the complainants
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners contended that they were kept temporary for years with artificial breaks, denied permanency and benefits, and terminated illegally in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act
Petitioners argued that they completed 240 days of service and were entitled to protection against retrenchment
Respondents contended that complaints were not maintainable under Item 1 of Schedule IV and should have been filed under Item 6 before the Industrial Court
Respondents argued that employment was under specific fixed-term contracts and termination by efflux of time is not retrenchment under Section 2(oo)(bb)
Respondents relied on the settlement dated 08.02.1994 which provided permanency to only 13 named employees and barred individual claims
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioners herein are the original Complainants who had filed Complaints (ULP) invoking Items 1(a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
It was the case of the Petitioners that they have been kept temporary for years together without giving them the benefit of permanency and were thereby denied all other benefits and facilities.
The Learned Judge of the Labour Court held that the contention raised on behalf of the Complainants that on account of completion of 240 days of service they have become permanent and therefore the termination is in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is illegal, could not be accepted.
The Learned Judge further held that the termination of the Complainants falls under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I. D. Act and therefore the rule of continuous aggregate service as defined in Model Standing Order 4C is not applicable.
Procedural History
Complaints (ULP) filed in 1995 before the Labour Court, Thane. Labour Court framed issues and after evidence, dismissed the complaints on 08.09.1997. Revision Applications filed before Industrial Court, Thane, which dismissed them on 23.12.1999. Writ Petition filed in 2000, argued on 19.09.2016, and judgment pronounced on 26.10.2016.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Schedule IV Items 1(a), 1(b), 1(d), 1(f)
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 25F, Section 2(oo), Section 2(oo)(bb)
- Model Standing Orders: 4C, 4D
