JUDGMENT - Mahatre Nishita, J.:—This petition impugns the order of the Industrial Court whereby the Industrial Court has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the petitioner has not made out a case under Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act and has also not been able to explain the delay in filing the complaint.

2.The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows: 

The petitioner was employed in the retail cloth shop of respondent No. 1 mill. He was issued a retirement memo on 26-11-1989 retiring him w.e.f. 9-6-1990 at the age of 60 years. The petitioner challenged this action of the respondent-mill by filing Complaint (ULP) No. 758 of 1990. The main contention raised in the complaint was that the petitioner should be continued in service till the age of 63 years just as the mill workers are continued till the age of 63 years. According to the petitioner, retiring him at the age of 60 years attracted the provisions of Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act. The contention was that two sets of service conditions could not apply to those employed in the retail cloth shop and persons working in the mill when they do the same kind of work.

2-A.In the written statement filed by respondent No. 1 it was pleaded that since retail cloth shop was covered by the Bombay Shop and Establishment Act, Model Standing Orders would apply and therefore, the petitioner had rightly been retired at the age of 60 years. The contention was that the petitioner had no right to continue upto the age of 63 years as the retail cloth shop was not covered by the Standing Orders framed under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act.

3.The evidence of the workman was led before the Industrial Court. Respondent No. 1 chose not to examine any workman on their behalf.

4.The Industrial Court held that the complaint was barred by limitation as the petitioner had challenged the action of the respondents in issuing the retirement memo only after he was in fact retired on 9-6-1990 although the memo had been issued in November, 1989. The Industrial Court came to the conclusion that since the petitioner was working as a cashier in the retail cloth shop, he did not fall under the category of operative and, therefore, the Standing Orders framed under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act were not applicable to the petitioner.

5.The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that after coming into force of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 the employer cannot show favouritism to one set of workmen and give them better benefits than the workman. He submits that if the employer indulges in such action, the provisions of Item 5 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act are attracted. He then submits that when the mill workers are entitled to continue in service under the Standing Orders applicable tilll the age of 63 years, the workmen employed in the retail cloth shop would have to be treated in the same manner although the retail cloth shop is not covered by the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. According to the learned Advocate for the sake of receiving benefits, the coverage by the Bombay Industrial Relations Act is not necessary as the employer cannot have two sets of service conditions for workmen in the establishment. He relies on the judgment in the case of (S.G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Employees Union v. S.G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Limited anr.)1, 1986(I) L.L.J. 490 to submit that although the mill is registered under the Factories Act and the retail cloth shop is registered under the Bombay Shop and Establishment Act, it does not follow that for providing certain benefits to the workmen employed in the factory or shop as the case may be the registration under a specific Act is important. According to the learned Advocate, merely because registration is under a particular Act it would not mean that the benefits to the employees in the different establishments

Click Here to Read the rest of this document