Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from complaints filed by sixteen women packers employed on temporary basis by a pharmaceutical company since 1985. They alleged that they were kept temporary for years through artificial breaks, denied permanency and benefits extended to permanent employees, and were terminated on 28 July 1994. Invoking Items 1(a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, they sought reinstatement with back wages, permanency and related allowances. The employer resisted on grounds of maintainability, citing a binding settlement with the recognised union, the specific nature of fixed-term contracts, and the termination by efflux of time falling under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, not retrenchment under Section 25F. The Labour Court dismissed the complaints, finding that the dispute fell under Item 6 of Schedule IV, not Item 1, and that the workers had not completed 240 days of continuous service, each contract having ended by efflux of time. The Industrial Court confirmed this order on revision. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Issue of Consideration
WRIT PETITION NO.1103 OF 2000
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (10) 56
Writ Petition No. 1103 of 2000
Shri. Y. M. Pendse for the Petitioners; Shri. S. K. Talsania, Senior Advocate instructed by Shri. R. V. Paranjape for the Respondents
Rohini S. Kurghode, Veena S. Pimpalwadkar, Sadhana R. Pote, Nutan Pingulkar, Kalpana G. Waghmare, Kalpana P. Mankame, Pushpa C. Tange, Vanshri Y. Bagade, Arundhati M. Marathe, Sandhya H. Singansane, Sunanda S. Badrika, Nalini Shankar Mokal, Sandhya Sadashiv Chavan, Arti Lahu Sawant, J. D. Mayekar, Savitri H. Patil
M/s. E. Merck (I) Limited and Mr. H. G. Broots, Managing Director (Respondent No. 2 deleted but referred to)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Complaints alleging unfair labour practices under Items 1(a), (b), (d), (f) of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act for illegal termination and denial of permanency.
Remedy Sought
Reinstatement with full backwages, permanency benefits, withdrawal of termination letters, and in alternative full wages and allowances if services not utilised.
Filing Reason
Termination of services on 28.07.1994 after being kept as temporary packers since 1985, with artificial breaks and denial of permanency.
Previous Decisions
Labour Court, Thane dismissed complaints on 08.09.1997. Industrial Court, Thane dismissed revision applications on 23.12.1999 confirming Labour Court's order.
Issues
Whether the Complainants proved the alleged unfair labour practice under Items 1(a), (b), (d), (f) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act?
Whether the Complainants were entitled to the reliefs claimed?
Whether the Respondents proved that the termination was proper and legal?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued they were in continuous service as packers since 27.08.1985, though kept temporary through artificial breaks; they were denied permanency and benefits; their termination on 28.07.1994 was illegal and victimisation, violating Section 25F of the ID Act; they sought reinstatement, backwages, and permanency benefits.
Respondents contended that complaints were not maintainable due to a binding settlement dated 08.02.1994 with the recognized union; the relief sought fell under Item 6 of Schedule IV, not Item 1, requiring jurisdiction of Industrial Court; employment was under specific fixed-term contracts ending by efflux of time, so termination was not retrenchment but covered by Section 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act; petitioners did not complete 240 days of continuous service in the preceding calendar year; Model Standing Orders 4C and 4D were inapplicable due to specific contracts.
Judgment Excerpts
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 such as sick leave, casual leave, medical allowance, house rent allowance to which the permanent employees were entitled to.
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 in view of the fact that the Complainants were engaged under a specific contract which is admitted by the Complainants and only the last termination on 28.07.1994 was challenged.
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
Petitioners filed Complaints (ULP) Nos. 124 to 135, 148 to 153, 158 of 1995 before Labour Court, Thane, alleging unfair labour practices under MRTU & PULP Act. Labour Court dismissed complaints by judgment dated 08.09.1997, holding that complaints should have been filed under Item 6 of Schedule IV before Industrial Court, and termination was by efflux of time under contract, not retrenchment. Petitioners filed Revision Applications (ULP) Nos. 13 to 22, 42 to 46 of 1998 and 56 of 1999 before Industrial Court, Thane. Industrial Court dismissed all revisions by judgment dated 23.12.1999, confirming Labour Court's order. Petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Industrial Court's order.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Items 1(a), 1(b), 1(d), 1(f) of Schedule IV, Item 6 of Schedule IV
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 25F, Section 2(oo), Section 2(oo)(bb)
- Constitution of India: Article 227
- Model Standing Orders under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946: 4C, 4D
