Case Note & Summary
The Dhule Municipal Corporation filed three writ petitions challenging a common award dated 29/12/2015 passed by the Labour Court, Dhule, in Reference (IDA) Nos. 2/2014, 1/2014, and 3/2014. The Labour Court had partly allowed the references filed by the respondents, who were daily wage employees appointed on 13/03/1990 by the then Dhule Municipal Council pursuant to a resolution for appointing 94 employees. The respondents claimed that they were illegally terminated without notice or compensation, amounting to unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The Labour Court held that the corporation failed to prove that the workmen were not in continuous service for 240 days under Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The corporation argued that the appointments were illegal as they were made without following the prescribed procedure and without the approval of the District Collector, who had stayed the resolution. The High Court noted that the corporation did not produce any muster rolls or attendance records to rebut the presumption of continuous service. The court held that the burden of proof was on the employer to show that the workmen had not worked for 240 days, and the corporation failed to discharge that burden. The court also observed that the corporation could not take advantage of its own wrong in not following the procedure for appointment. The High Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the Labour Court's award and directing the corporation to comply with the order within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Item 6 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Termination of daily wage employees without notice or compensation - Labour Court held that the employer failed to prove that the workmen were not in continuous service under Section 25-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Held that the termination amounted to unfair labour practice and directed reinstatement with continuity and back wages (Paras 1-10).
B) Industrial Law - Continuous Service - Section 25-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Burden of proof on employer to show that workmen had not worked for 240 days in preceding year - Corporation failed to produce muster rolls or attendance records - Held that the Labour Court correctly inferred continuous service (Paras 5-8).
C) Industrial Law - Regularisation - Daily wage employees appointed by resolution of Municipal Council - Corporation cannot take advantage of its own wrong in not following procedure - Held that the employees were entitled to regularisation and protection under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Paras 3-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court erred in holding that the respondents were in continuous service and entitled to reinstatement with continuity and back wages, and whether the petitioner corporation could challenge the award on the ground that the appointments were illegal and without following procedure.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed all three writ petitions, upholding the Labour Court's award dated 29/12/2015. The court directed the petitioner corporation to comply with the award within four weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on employer to show that workmen were not in continuous service
- Section 25-B of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Regularisation of daily wage employees
- Applicability of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (10) 187
Writ Petition No. 9868 of 2016, Writ Petition No. 9869 of 2016, Writ Petition No. 9871 of 2016
Shri Desale Nilesh N. for Petitioner, Shri S.R. Patil for Respondents
The Dhule Municipal Corporation
Laxmi Fattesing Vasave, Nirmala Gulab Ahire, Baban Vasant Zote
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging Labour Court award in industrial disputes regarding unfair labour practice and termination of daily wage employees.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (Dhule Municipal Corporation) sought to quash the Labour Court award directing reinstatement with continuity and back wages.
Filing Reason
The corporation challenged the award on the ground that the appointments of the respondents were illegal and without following procedure, and that the Labour Court erred in holding that the respondents were in continuous service.
Previous Decisions
The Labour Court, Dhule, partly allowed the references (Ref. IDA No. 2/2014, 1/2014, 3/2014) on 29/12/2015, holding that the termination amounted to unfair labour practice and directing reinstatement with continuity and back wages.
Issues
Whether the Labour Court erred in holding that the respondents were in continuous service under Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Whether the corporation could challenge the award on the ground that the appointments were illegal and without following procedure?
Whether the termination of the respondents amounted to unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the appointments were illegal as they were made without following the prescribed procedure and without the approval of the District Collector, who had stayed the resolution.
Petitioner argued that the respondents were not in continuous service and the Labour Court erred in holding otherwise.
Respondents argued that they were appointed on 13/03/1990 and worked continuously until termination without notice or compensation, amounting to unfair labour practice.
Respondents argued that the corporation failed to produce muster rolls or attendance records to rebut the presumption of continuous service.
Ratio Decidendi
The burden of proof under Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is on the employer to show that the workman was not in continuous service for 240 days. The employer cannot take advantage of its own wrong in not following procedure for appointment. Failure to produce muster rolls or attendance records leads to an inference that the workmen were in continuous service.
Judgment Excerpts
The burden of proof under Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is on the employer to show that the workman was not in continuous service for 240 days.
The corporation cannot take advantage of its own wrong in not following the procedure for appointment.
Failure to produce muster rolls or attendance records leads to an inference that the workmen were in continuous service.
Procedural History
The respondents filed references before the Labour Court, Dhule, which were registered as Ref. IDA No. 2/2014, 1/2014, and 3/2014. The Labour Court partly allowed the references on 29/12/2015. The petitioner corporation filed three writ petitions before the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, challenging the award. The High Court heard the petitions and dismissed them on 05/12/2016.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 25-B, Section 25-F
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Item 6 of Schedule IV
