Case Note & Summary
The writ petitions arose from the dismissal of complaints under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act) by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court. The petitioners, whose family lands were acquired for the Gosikhurd irrigation project of the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (VIDC), were appointed as Junior Clerks on 2 July 1996 on a temporary basis for six months as project-affected persons. Their appointment orders required production of a project-affected person certificate from the District Collector/District Rehabilitation Officer. However, the Superintending Engineer relaxed this condition and permitted them to join on the strength of a certificate from the Executive Engineer. After working from 2 July 1996 to 21 January 1997, the petitioners were terminated with retrospective effect from 3 January 1996 and 10 January 1996, ostensibly because their tenure had expired, but actually because they had not produced the certificate from the competent authority. The petitioners later obtained the requisite certificates in 1998 and 1999, but the respondents refused to reinstate them, although other similarly situated employees were reinstated upon production of such certificates. The Labour Court and the Industrial Court dismissed the petitioners' complaints, holding that the termination was in terms of the appointment orders and did not amount to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. On writ petitions, the High Court observed that the termination was illegal because it was retrospective in operation and the real reason was non-production of the certificate. The Court found that the termination attracted the provisions of Items (a), (b) and (d) of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, as it was not in good faith, was carried out with undue haste, and was discriminatory. The Court noted that the respondents' witness admitted that if the certificates had been produced at the time of appointment, the petitioners would have been appointed on a permanent basis, and that other employees were reinstated upon producing the certificates. The Court held that the denial of the same treatment to the petitioners constituted victimization. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court, declared the termination illegal, and directed reinstatement of the petitioners with continuity of service and back wages.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Termination in accordance with appointment order - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Schedule IV Items (a), (b), (d) - The termination order dated 21.01.1997 was with retrospective effect and the real reason was non-production of certificate, not expiry of term. Held: The termination attracted the provisions of Items (a), (b) and (d) of Schedule IV, amounting to victimization and discriminatory treatment (Paras 9-10). B) Labour Law - Employment of Project Affected Persons - Production of Certificate from Competent Authority - Government Resolution dated 18.06.1990 - The requirement of certificate from District Collector was relaxed by Superintending Engineer's letter and appointment was made on basis of Executive Engineer's certificate. Later production of certificate from competent authority entitled petitioners to regularization, as was done for similarly situated persons, and denial amounted to unfair labour practice (Paras 5-7). C) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Discriminatory Treatment - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Schedule IV Item (d) - The respondents reinstated other similarly situated employees upon production of certificate but denied the same benefit to petitioners, which constituted victimization (Paras 7-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the petitioners was illegal and attracted the provisions of Items (a), (b) and (c) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court, held the termination illegal and amounting to unfair labour practice under Items (a), (b) and (d) of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act, and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.
Law Points
- Termination with retrospective effect is illegal
- non-production of certificate from competent authority does not justify termination if requirement was relaxed and certificate later produced
- similarly situated employees must be treated equally
- denial of reinstatement amounts to victimization
- termination in colourable exercise of powers attracts unfair labour practice provisions.
