Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a complaint filed by the appellants, two temporary drivers, before the Industrial Court, Nagpur, alleging unfair labour practice by their employer, the Maharashtra State Seed Certification Agency. The appellants claimed that they had been working continuously since 1996 and had completed 240 days of continuous service, thereby entitling them to permanency under Standing Order 4(c) and the MRTU & PULP Act. They complained under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The Industrial Court, by judgment dated 22 January 2001, partly allowed the complaint, finding that although the employer needed two regular drivers and had created two posts of drivers by a board resolution dated 30 November 2000, the lack of government sanction prevented permanency. It held no unfair labour practice under Item 6 but granted a declaration under Item 9, directing the employer to move the State Government for sanction and not to discontinue the appellants in the meantime. The employer challenged this order in Writ Petition No. 899 of 2001 before the High Court. The learned Single Judge, on 17 November 2008, set aside the Industrial Court’s order, relying on the decisions in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Sanghatana, holding that in the absence of sanctioned posts, mere completion of 240 days’ service could not result in regularization. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the present Letters Patent Appeal in 2009. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants were not provided work; they claimed they were terminated or at least not given work and, being daily wagers, could not report daily. Before the Division Bench, the appellants contended that the employer’s board had itself created posts and the need for government sanction was not demonstrated. They argued that the Single Judge misapplied the Supreme Court precedents and that they lost all past service. The respondent employer supported the Single Judge’s order, pointing out that the Industrial Court itself had found no sanctioned posts and thus no unfair labour practice under Item 6. It also argued that the appellants had not reported for work since 2009 and any claim would be barred by limitation. The Bench noted that basic facts were not in dispute: two vehicles were sanctioned, and the board had resolved to create two driver posts, but the role of government sanction was unclear. However, the Court observed that since the appellants had stopped reporting for work from 2009, granting regularization at that stage was not possible. It held that all issues, including the applicability of Umadevi and Maharashtra SRTC and the validity of the Industrial Court’s findings, were left open. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to the appellants to approach the competent court for reinstatement or provision of work, including by invoking Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, and if they could explain the delay and latches, the court would consider their grievance on merits. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practice (Permanency) - Item 6 Schedule IV, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Requirement of sanctioned posts for regularization - The Industrial Court found that the employer needed drivers but lacked sanctioned posts, and thus did not commit unfair labour practice under Item 6; mere completion of 240 days' continuous service does not confer permanency without a sanctioned post. Held that the Single Judge correctly upheld that finding (Paras 4, 6, 12). B) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practice (Failure to Implement) - Item 9 Schedule IV, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Failure to obtain government sanction - The Industrial Court held that employer's failure to move the competent authority to sanction posts constituted unfair labour practice under Item 9, but the Single Judge set this aside, ruling that such omission did not attract Item 9. The LPA Bench observed that the Board resolution creating posts did not indicate a need for government approval, and did not finally decide this issue (Paras 4, 10, 12, 15). C) Service Law - Regularization - One-time measure - Constitution of India - Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 and Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Sanghatana (2009) 8 SCC 556 - Requirement of 10 years continuous service and sanctioned vacant posts - The appellants had completed 10 years of service by 2006, which could qualify for one-time regularization under Umadevi, but the LPA Bench noted that regularization was not possible as the appellants had not reported for work since 2009; the legal position under Umadevi and Maharashtra SRTC was considered (Paras 15, 16, 17). D) Labour Law - Re-employment Rights - Section 25H, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Relief when work not provided - Since the appellants were not given work after 2009 due to their inability to report daily, the Court observed that if they seek reinstatement or work by invoking Section 25H, the competent court may consider their grievance on merits after explaining delay. All issues kept open (Paras 16, 17, 18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court's direction to the employer to move the State Government for sanction of posts and not to discontinue the appellants was justified under the MRTU & PULP Act, and whether the Single Judge correctly set aside that order on the ground of no sanctioned posts. Whether regularization could be granted when the appellants had completed 240 days of continuous service but no sanctioned posts existed.
Final Decision
The Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of. All issues and contentions are kept open. The appellants are at liberty to approach the competent court for reinstatement or work under Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, and if they explain the delay, the court may consider the matter on merits. No costs.
Law Points
- Completion of 240 days continuous service does not automatically entitle to permanency without sanctioned posts
- Unfair labour practice under Item 6 Schedule IV MRTU & PULP Act requires vacant sanctioned posts
- Failure to obtain government sanction for posts is not unfair labour practice under Item 9
- Regularization as one-time measure under Umadevi requires 10 years continuous service and sanctioned vacant posts
- Section 25H Industrial Disputes Act provides re-employment rights for retrenched workers
