Case Note & Summary
The petitioner was appointed as a labourer/mazoor with the Public Works Department of Maharashtra on 2 April 1984. His services were terminated on 30 April 1987 along with 110 other similarly appointed employees, despite having completed more than three years of continuous service. He filed a complaint of unfair labour practice under Section 28 read with Item I of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act before the Labour Court at Akola. Another collective complaint by 56 of the terminated employees was allowed on 30 September 1992, ordering reinstatement. The respondents’ revision was dismissed, and a subsequent writ petition was settled, leading to the reinstatement of those employees without back wages, as per a Government Resolution dated 8 May 2007. The petitioner, who had offered to forgo back wages in like manner, was not reinstated. His complaint remained pending and was eventually dismissed by the Labour Court on the ground that he failed to prove violation of Sections 25F, 25G, 25N and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, especially since he had accepted compensation under Section 25F. The Industrial Court upheld this decision. The petitioner challenged these orders before the Bombay High Court. The High Court found that the petitioner was identically placed with the 56 reinstated employees; they too had accepted Section 25F compensation yet were reinstated. The respondents had even called for an undertaking from the petitioner to forgo back wages, indicating willingness. Thus, there was no justifiable reason to deny him similar relief. The court relied on a previous decision in Janrao Jagaannath Bhatkar v. State of Maharashtra where a similarly placed petitioner was granted relief. As the petitioner had superannuated during the litigation, reinstatement was impractical. Applying principles of justice, equity and good conscience, and taking note of the petitioner’s affidavit quantifying loss of salary, pension and gratuity at around Rs.17,00,000, the court fixed compensation at Rs.5,00,000, considering the no work no pay principle and lack of inquiry into alternative employment. The writ petition was allowed, impugned orders quashed, and respondents directed to pay compensation within six weeks, failing which interest at 9% per annum would accrue.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Termination of Daily Wager - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Section 28, Schedule IV Item 1 - Petitioner, a labourer appointed on 02-04-1984, was terminated along with 110 others by order dated 30-04-1987 after more than three years of continuous service. He filed complaint alleging unfair labour practice. Collected complaint of 56 similarly terminated employees was allowed and they were reinstated without back wages. Petitioner’s complaint was dismissed by Labour Court and Industrial Court. Held, petitioner being similarly placed is entitled to similar relief; denial without reason is arbitrary (Paras 4-6). B) Labour Law - Parity in Relief - Reinstatement - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 25F, 25G, 25N, 25H - Respondents contended no violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. Court found that 56 reinstated employees had also accepted compensation under Section 25F, yet they were reinstated, and petitioner offered same undertaking to forgo back wages. Held, petitioner’s case is identical; parity demands same treatment; violation of Sections is not the sole determinant when parity is established (Paras 5-6). C) Labour Law - Compensation in Lieu of Reinstatement - Superannuation - Principles of Equity, Justice and Good Conscience - As petitioner had attained superannuation during litigation, reinstatement was not feasible. Court applied principles of equity to quantify compensation for loss of opportunity. No exact scientific formula; thumb rule considering back wages forgone by others, superannuation date, and affidavit on losses. Directed payment of Rs.5,00,000 compensation within six weeks, with default interest at 9% p.a. Held, justice requires monetary compensation in such circumstances (Paras 7-8). D) Labour Law - Back Wages - No Work No Pay Principle - Petitioner claimed wages from 2004 (when others reinstated) till superannuation in 2012. Court rejected full back wages, applying ‘no work no pay’ and absence of enquiry into gainful employment. Held, equity limited relief to ad hoc compensation rather than full back wages (Para 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, whose services were terminated along with 110 others and who was similarly situated to 56 employees who were later reinstated, was entitled to reinstatement or compensation, especially considering he had superannuated during the pendency of proceedings; and whether the Labour Court and Industrial Court erred in dismissing his complaint of unfair labour practice.
Final Decision
Rule made absolute. The impugned orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000 to the petitioner within six weeks. In case of default, interest at 9% per annum shall be paid from the expiry of six weeks until realization. Petition disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- similarly placed employees entitled to similar treatment
- no work no pay principle
- equity justice and good conscience as basis for compensation
- right to reinstatement under MRTU and PULP Act
- compensation in lieu of reinstatement upon superannuation
- violation of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 provisions not necessary when parity exists
