Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Municipal Council, Tirora, against an order of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dated 11.10.2007. The Single Judge had refused to recall an earlier order dated 17.07.2006 on Civil Application No. 6876 of 2004 in Writ Petition No. 2148 of 1999 and disposed of the writ petition. The background involves a complaint (ULP No. 595 of 1993) filed by a workman (Asgar Khan Mohd. Khan Pathan, since deceased) against the Municipal Council before the Industrial Court at Nagpur under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). On 05.05.1999, the Industrial Court allowed the complaint, declaring that the employer engaged in unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act, and directed the employer to grant the workman the status and privileges of a permanent employee from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., 22.04.1993. The employer challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No. 2148 of 1999, which was admitted and the Industrial Court's order was stayed on 05.08.1999. Subsequently, the workman filed Civil Application No. 6876 of 2004, stating that the employer had implemented the Industrial Court's order, rendering the writ petition infructuous. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 17.07.2006, disposed of the writ petition as infructuous. The employer then filed Civil Application No. 1562 of 2007 seeking recall of that order, which was rejected on 11.10.2007. The employer appealed against this rejection. The Division Bench noted that none appeared for the appellant or the respondents except the AGP for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Upon perusal of records, the Court found that the employer had indeed implemented the Industrial Court's order by granting permanent status to the workman. Consequently, the writ petition had become infructuous, and the learned Single Judge correctly refused to recall the order of disposal. The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Permanent Status - Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court allowed the complaint and directed the employer to grant permanent status to the workman from the date of filing of the complaint. The employer challenged the order but later complied with it. The High Court held that the appeal against the order disposing of the writ petition as infructuous is itself infructuous due to compliance. (Paras 4-6)
B) Civil Procedure - Recall of Order - Mootness - The learned Single Judge refused to recall the order dated 17.07.2006 disposing of the writ petition as infructuous after the employer implemented the Industrial Court's order. The Division Bench upheld the decision, noting that no further adjudication is required. (Paras 1, 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appeal against the order refusing to recall the earlier order disposing of the writ petition survives when the employer has already complied with the Industrial Court's order granting permanent status to the workman.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Compliance renders appeal infructuous
- Unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Permanent status granted from date of complaint
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (06) 213
Letters Patent Appeal No. 347 of 2007 in Writ Petition No. 2148 of 1999
B.P. Dharmadhikari, Rohit B. Deo
Shri R.V. Kalia, AGP for respondent Nos. 3 & 4
The Municipal Council, Tirora, through its Chief Officer
Bhandara Zilla Nagar Parishad Kamgar Sanghatna, Tirora; Asgar Khan Mohd. Khan Pathan (deceased) through legal heirs; The Collector, Gondia; The Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Letters Patent Appeal against order refusing to recall order disposing of writ petition as infructuous
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought recall of order dated 17.07.2006 disposing of writ petition as infructuous
Filing Reason
Appellant challenged the order of the learned Single Judge refusing to recall the earlier order disposing of the writ petition
Previous Decisions
Industrial Court allowed complaint on 05.05.1999; writ petition admitted and stay granted on 05.08.1999; writ petition disposed as infructuous on 17.07.2006; recall application rejected on 11.10.2007
Issues
Whether the appeal against the order refusing to recall the earlier order disposing of the writ petition survives when the employer has already complied with the Industrial Court's order granting permanent status to the workman.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the order disposing of the writ petition should be recalled.
Workman contended that the employer had implemented the Industrial Court's order, rendering the writ petition infructuous.
Ratio Decidendi
When an employer complies with the order of the Industrial Court granting permanent status to a workman, the challenge to that order becomes infructuous, and any subsequent appeal against the disposal of the writ petition as infructuous is also infructuous.
Judgment Excerpts
The order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 11.10.2007 on Civil Application No. 1562 of 2007, refusing to recall the earlier order dated 17.07.2006 on Civil Application No. 6876 of 2004 in Writ Petition No. 2148 of 1999 and disposing of that writ petition has been questioned before this Court.
The Member, Industrial Court at Nagpur, on 05.05.1999 allowed Complaint ULP No. 595 of 1993 instituted by the workman and declared that the employer has engaged in Unfair labour practice under Articles 6 & 9 of Scheduled IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971...
The employer – Municipal Council approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 2148 of 1999. It appears that writ petition was admitted for final hearing and the impugned judgment delivered by the Industrial Court was also stayed on 05.08.1999.
Civil Application No. 6876 of 2004 was then moved by the workman who pointed out that the impugned judgment of the Industrial Court was implemented by the employer and as such the petition did not survive.
In this situation, the learned Single Judge has rightly refused to recall the order dated 17.07.2006. The appeal is without any merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Procedural History
Industrial Court allowed complaint on 05.05.1999. Employer filed Writ Petition No. 2148 of 1999, admitted and stay granted on 05.08.1999. Workman filed Civil Application No. 6876 of 2004 stating compliance; writ petition disposed as infructuous on 17.07.2006. Employer filed Civil Application No. 1562 of 2007 for recall, rejected on 11.10.2007. Employer filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 347 of 2007, dismissed on 15.06.2017.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV
