The main legal point established in the judgment is that even part-time workers are entitled to the protection of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the burden of proof lies with the employer to establish the legality of termination.

( 1 ) THE petitioner herein is an unfortunate widow belonging to backward class whose bread has been snatched by the respondent, the Maharashtra State Road transport Corporation, Chandrapur Division, chandrapur (for short, the "msrtc") putting her and her two small children to starvation. What would have been the plight of a woman when her coolie husband suddenly became blind and became a liability on her along with her two children. What would have been the plight of a woman who was suddenly deprived of the income even of Rs. 550/- per month with which she supported her two children and her husband who then expired and she bacame widow during the pendency of the lis. It is further unfortunate that the respondent has, on the basis of the constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme court in The Secretary of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi and ors. and other judgments, sought to unjustifiably dodge the petitioner from getting any relief to which she is otherwise entitled to in accordance with law. Though the pronouncement of law by the Constitution bench of the Apex Court in Umadevi's case (supra) related to regularization of employees, taking a few sentences from the said judgment, it is being vehemently argued that the judgment prohibits issuance of any directions for reinstatement even if the Labour/industrial Court or this Court finds the termination illegal. In my opinion, the Government Department, public Corporations and Undertakings and municipal Councils are attempting to misuse the judgment in Umadevi's case as has been experienced by me in this case, and some other cases decided by me recently i. e. W. P. No. 391/ 2006 and W. P. No. 3021/2001.

( 2 ) BY the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the revisional judgment and order dated 01-07-2003 passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur in revision (ULPA) No. 339 of 2002 by which the learned Industrial Court set aside the judgment and order dated 20th June, 2002 made by the labour Court, Chandrapur in Complaint (ULPA)No. 135 of 1994. Looking to the nature of the impugned judgment and order, the present petition is treated as the one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 3 ) THE petitioner filed a complaint under Section 28 read with item (1) of Schedule iv of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices act, 1971 (for short, the "mrtu and PULP Act")before the Labour Court, Chandrapur against the respondent MSRTC. In the said complaint, she pleaded that she was appointed by the respondent firstly by written order of appointment dated 08-06-1989 (Exhibit-18) and by another order dated 01-04-1991 (Exhibit-19) to work as sweeper on consolidated honorarium of Rs. 500/- per month. In Exhibit-18, it was stated that she would be required to clean the Divisional Office, Establishment section, Accounts Section as well as toilets and latrines. She was being appointed until further orders in accordance with the contract and she would have no right whatsoever, her work being on contract basis. The order of appointment (Exhibit-19) is on similar lines, but there is an increase of Rs. 50/- per month in her consolidated salary. In this order, the word "honorarium" is not used but word "salary" is used. After this order, she continuously worked as sweeper till she was lastly terminated on 01-08-1994. It appears that her husband was working as a coolie in MSRTC, Chandrapur depot and suddenly he became blind and his family thus abruptly went in a state of penury. It appears with a view to feed her husband and her children, she became prepared to work even as a sweeper with M. S. R. T. C. and was accordingly employed. It appears from her affidavit dated 1st March, 2004 to Civil application No. 2821/2004 in this Writ Petition that her husband expired during pendency of the litigation and now she has to support herself and her two small children. She then averred in her complaint that she worked without any break and wh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document