2009 Supreme(SC) 1504

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TARUN CHATTERJEE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Another
Versus
Casteribe Rajya P. Karmchari Sanghatana
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3433 OF 2007 With Civil Appeal No. 3434/2007 Civil Appeal No.3435/2007 Civil Appeal No. 3436/2007 Civil Appeal No. 3437/2007
Date of Judgment : 28-08-2009

IMPORTANT POINTS
Right to life guaranteed by Article 21 does not include right to employment.
Complaint filed by unrecognized union is not maintainable in terms of section 21 of 1971 Act.
Section 30 of 1971 Act gives wide powers to the Industrial and Labour Courts for affirmative action. Such power is inclusive and not exhaustive.
Engaging employees as badlies, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees is unfair labour practice.
Where posts exist and unfair labour practice is established, Umadevi 1 will not apply.
Courts cannot direct creation of posts or confer permanency on employees in absence of posts.
Section 21 creates a bar on unrecognized union from acting, appearing or representing any employee(s) in a proceeding relating to unfair labour practices under items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV.
Workmen cannot be denied their legitimate rights merely because their cause was espoused by unrecognised union.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right to life guaranteed by Article 21 – Does not include right to employment. (Para 24)

       (b) Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 – Section 30 – Gives wide power to the Industrial and Labour Courts – Affirmative action mentioned therein is inclusive and not exhaustive. (Para 26)

       (c) Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 – Schedule IV, Item 6 – Engaging employees as badlies, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees is unfair labour practice. (Para 26)

       (d) Interpretation of statute – Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 – section 30 and Schedule IV, Item 6 – Ruling in Umadevi1 – Cannot override powers of Industrial and Labour courts u/s 30 and Schedule IV, Item 6 of MRTU & PULP Act – Where posts exist and unfair labour practice is established, Umadevi 1 will not apply. (Para 26)

       (2006) 4 SCC 1 – Distinguished

       AIR 1967 SC 1071; (1972) 1 SCC 409; (1979) 4 SCC 507 – Referred

       (e) Labour law – Creation of posts – Courts cannot direct creation of posts – In absence of posts status of permanency cannot be granted by Court – Executive functions and powers with regard to the creation of posts cannot be abrogated by Courts – However instantly, posts of cleaners exist in the appellant-corporation. (Para 27, 31)

       (2001) 7 SCC 346; (2005) 6 SCC 751; (2007) 1 SCC 408; (2008) 1 SCC 683 – Relied upon

       (f) Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 – Section 21(1) – Empowers only recognised union to espouse the cause relating to unfair labour practices specified in items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV before Industrial/Labour Court – Section 21 creates a bar on unrecognized union from acting, appearing or representing any employee(s) in a proceeding relating to unfair labour practices under items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV. (Para 38)

       (1995) 3 SCC 78; 1962 Supp (2) SCR 890; (1978) 1 SCC 162; 1984 Supp. SCC 663; (1993) 2 SCC 115 – Relied upon

       1983 MJ 618 – Distinguished

       (g) Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 – Section 21(1) r/w Schedule IV, Item 6 – Unfair labour practice – Workmen working on post of cleaners on daily wages – Posts existing – Workmen terminated – Cause espoused by unrecognized union – Litigation travelling up to Supreme Court – Held complaint not maintainable u/s 21 – In the meantime similarly situated workmen filing complaints individually getting relief – Denying these workmen same relief merely because their cause was espoused by unrecognized union not justified – Status, wages and other benefits of permanency applicable to the post of cleaners awarded to the workmen – Constitution of India – Article 142. (Para 42)

       Facts of the case:

       The Union, although a registered union under the Trade Union Act, but unrecognised under MRTU & PULP Act, filed two complaints before the Industrial Court, Bombay alleging that the Corporation has indulged in unfair labour practice under item nos. 5,6,9 and 10 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act.

       The complaint filed by the union related to the employees who were engaged by the Corporation as casual labourers for cleaning the buses between the years 1980-85. According to the complainants, these employees are required to work everyday at least eight hours at the concerned depot of the Corporation; the work done by these employees is of permanent nature but they are being paid a paltry amount; and that the posts of sweepers/cleaners are available in the Corporation yet these employees have been kept on casual and temporary basis for years together denying them the benefit of permanency.

       Another complaint was filed by 19 individual employees before Industrial Court, Thane, raising identical dispute.

       The Industrial Court held that the complaints were maintainable in respect of unfair labour practice under item nos. 5, 9 and 10 and the Corporation was directed to pay equal wages to the concerned employees which are paid to Swachhak and pay arrears of wages to them from the date of filing of the complaints.

       The Industrial Court, Thane similarly held that the Corporation indulged in unfair labour practice under item 6 of Schedule IV by continuing the complainants as temporary/casual/daily wage workers for years together and thereby depriving them the benefits of permanency. The Industrial Court, Thane, accordingly, directed the Corporation to cease and desist from the said unfair practice within one month from the date of the order by giving status, wages and all other benefits of permanency applicable to the post of cleaners to the complainants w.e.f. August 3, 1982.

       The single Judge of the High Court held that the complaints by the unrecognized union under item 6 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act were maintainable and that Corporation indulged in unfair labour practice under item 6 of Schedule IV. It was also held that there is unfair labour practice on the part of the Corporation under item no. 5 of Schedule IV as well. The single Judge, accordingly, directed that employees mentioned in the two complaints filed by the Union be given benefit of permanency including salary and allowances from the date of filing the respective complaints.

       The Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed.

       Finding of the Court:

       Complaint filed by unrecognised union is not maintainable.

       Result:

       Appeals dismissed.