Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, originally employees of Kolhapur Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., challenged a judgment of the Industrial Court at Kolhapur dismissing their complaint of unfair labour practices under Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The petitioners were among 26 employees who remained after a voluntary retirement scheme and were taken over by Punjab and Maharashtra Coop. Bank Ltd. under an MOU dated 29 June 2008. The MOU provided that these employees would not receive pay revision for three years but would be entitled to annual increments. The petitioners alleged that the respondent bank's refusal to grant pay revision and other benefits constituted unfair labour practices. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint, holding that the terms of the MOU and the settlement dated 22 June 2008 were binding. The High Court upheld this decision, finding no evidence of discrimination or victimization, and noted that the petitioners had accepted the terms of the MOU and continued to work. The court also observed that the petitioners were not entitled to the same pay revision as other employees of the respondent bank because they were governed by separate terms. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Items 5, 9, 10 of Schedule IV, MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Refusal to grant pay revision - Petitioners were employees of a bank taken over by respondent bank under an MOU which froze pay revision for three years - Held that the refusal was in terms of the MOU and settlement, and did not constitute an unfair labour practice as there was no discrimination or victimization (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the refusal to grant pay revision to the petitioners after their transfer to the respondent bank amounts to an unfair labour practice under Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- MRTU & PULP Act
- Items 5
- 9
- 10 of Schedule IV
- settlement binding on employees
- voluntary retirement scheme
- transfer of undertaking
- memorandum of understanding
- pay revision freeze
- annual increments
- no discrimination
- no victimization
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (06) 127
Writ Petition No.2007 of 2017
Mr. Meelan Topkar for the Petitioners, Mr. Sandesh Shukla a/w. Mr. Amit Singh and Mr. Hafeez Patanwala i/b. Santosh Sawant for the Respondents
Sanjay Madhukar Bugade & Ors.
Punjab and Maharashtra Coop. Bank Ltd. & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the judgment and order of the Industrial Court dismissing a complaint of unfair labour practices.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to challenge the Industrial Court's order and obtain relief against alleged unfair labour practices by the respondent bank.
Filing Reason
The petitioners alleged that the respondent bank refused to grant pay revision and other benefits, constituting unfair labour practices under Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court at Kolhapur dismissed Complaint (ULP) No.26 of 2010 filed by the petitioners on 5 August 2016.
Issues
Whether the refusal to grant pay revision to the petitioners after their transfer to the respondent bank amounts to an unfair labour practice under Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the respondent bank's refusal to grant pay revision and other benefits constituted unfair labour practices under Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
The respondents contended that the terms of the MOU and the settlement dated 22 June 2008 were binding on the petitioners, and there was no discrimination or victimization.
Ratio Decidendi
The refusal to grant pay revision was in accordance with the MOU and settlement, and did not constitute an unfair labour practice as there was no evidence of discrimination or victimization. The petitioners were bound by the terms they accepted upon transfer.
Judgment Excerpts
The complaint was filed under Items 5, 9 and 10 of the Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
The MOU provided that these 26 employees could not be given any pay revision for three years, though it was agreed that they would be entitled to annual increments in their present basic salary.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed Complaint (ULP) No.26 of 2010 before the Industrial Court at Kolhapur, which was dismissed on 5 August 2016. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which was dismissed on 27 June 2018.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act): Items 5, 9, 10 of Schedule IV
