Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Lokmat Newspapers Private Limited, a registered company publishing daily newspapers from Nagpur, challenged the judgment and order dated 12.3.2008 passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur in Complaint (ULPA) No.97/2003. The Industrial Court allowed the complaint filed by the respondent, Motiram Mahadeorao Dhoble, under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act), declaring that the petitioner had engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5, 7, and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The respondent was appointed with effect from 25.5.1984, but his appointment order was issued in the name of M/s. Goldi Advertising and Marketing Services (P) Limited. The respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No.459/1988 before the Industrial Court claiming that his employment was under the petitioner-company and that he was entitled to the pay-scale applicable to the post of Junior Clerk as per the Bachhawat Award. That complaint was allowed on 21.4.1998, and the litigation was contested up to the Supreme Court, which dismissed the petitioner's SLP on 22.4.1999. Subsequently, the respondent filed the present complaint alleging that despite the earlier orders, the petitioner did not implement the Bachhawat Award and did not treat him as a permanent employee, thereby engaging in unfair labour practices. The Industrial Court allowed the complaint, directing the petitioner to cease and desist from the unfair labour practices and to implement the Bachhawat Award. The High Court, after considering the submissions, found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, upholding the Industrial Court's order.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Item 5 of Schedule IV - Employer's failure to implement the Bachhawat Award and treat the workman as permanent amounts to unfair labour practice under Item 5 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court found that the petitioner failed to give the respondent workman the benefits of the Bachhawat Award and did not treat him as a permanent employee despite his long service, which constitutes an unfair labour practice (Paras 2-5). B) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Item 7 of Schedule IV - Denial of permanency and benefits to a workman who has completed 240 days of service amounts to unfair labour practice under Item 7 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The respondent workman was appointed in 1984 and worked continuously, but the petitioner did not make him permanent or grant him the benefits of the Bachhawat Award, which is a clear violation (Paras 2-5). C) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Item 9 of Schedule IV - Failure to give permanency and benefits to a workman who has worked for more than 240 days constitutes unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court held that the petitioner's conduct in not regularizing the respondent's services and denying him the benefits of the Bachhawat Award amounts to unfair labour practice (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in holding that the petitioner-employer engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5, 7, and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, and whether the relief granted was appropriate.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order dated 12.3.2008 in Complaint (ULPA) No.97/2003, which declared that the petitioner engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5, 7, and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, and directed the petitioner to cease and desist from such practices.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Items 5
- 7
- 9 of Schedule IV
- MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Bachhawat Award
- workman status
- permanent employee
- back wages
- reinstatement
