IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N.M. JAMDAR, J.
Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai – Petitioner
Versus
Kachara Vahtuk Shramik Sangh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 11519 of 2014
Decided On : 22-12-2016
N.M. JAMDAR, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final disposal.
2. The Petitioner-Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, has approached this Court invoking the Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, dated 13 October 2014, rendered in Reference (IT) No. 13 of 2007. The Industrial Tribunal has answered the Reference in affirmative against the Petitioner Corporation and has directed the Petitioner Corporation to treat 2700 employees concerned in the Reference as permanent employees of the Corporation and to extend them the benefits and status of permanent workers retrospectively from the date of completion of 240 days of service from their dates of joining.
3. The Petitioner-Mumbai Municipal Corporation, in short, the Corporation, is established under the provisions of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. (The Act) The Respondent-Kachra Vahtuk Shramik Sangh, in short, the Union, is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act and represents the cause of the workers engaged in the work of Solid Waste Management in the Corporation.
4. The Union took up the cause of workers working in the Solid Waste Management department of the Corporation in the year 1995 and a protracted litigation between the Union and the Corporation ensued. As far as the present dispute is concerned, the Union raised the charter of demands on 9 February 2007 and 23 March 2007 in respect of 2700 workers. Since there was no response, a notice of strike was served by the Union under Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, as the workers concerned are from the public utility services. The appropriate Government exercised powers under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (in short, the I.D. Act), made a Reference on 13 April 2007 to the Industrial Tribunal. The schedule to the Reference was as under:
SCHEDULE
1. That the workers listed in the annexures, who have been engaged in and have been working as Sweepers, Loaders, etc. are performing the work of sweeping, clearing the roads/gallies/areas/markets, etc. of Gr. Mumbai of Municipal Corporation and performing the work of collection and transportation of garbage and other refuges be declared to be workers of B.M.C. And every such workman be extended the benefits and status of permanent workers of B.M.C. respectively from the date of completion of 240 days of service from the dates of joining of the respective workers.
2. That the Corporation shall create permanent posts of sweepers/loaders, etc. accommodate the above-mentioned workers.
3. Pending finalization of these demands the Corporation shall ensure to pay wages to the above workers concerned equal to the wages of unskilled workers of the Corporation.
4. Pending finalization of these demands the Corporation shall provide that the present set of workers given above shall be continued in the activity of sweeping, cleaning etc. of the Corporation. In the event of change of so-called contractor/NGOs, they shall be granted priority in employment on the basis of seniority, in the same manner the workers in Reference (IT) No. 81 of 2005 are granted.
Pursuant to the Reference, the Union filed its statement of claim dated 8 May 2007 in the Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai. The gist of the case of the Union was as follows. The Union is espousing the cause of substantial number of workers in different wards of the Corporation all over the city, in respect of the activities of the Corporation in Solid Waste Management. These workers belong to drought-affected areas of Maharashtra and other states including Tamil Nadu. They come from the lower strata of the community, relegated to that status due to the caste system prevailing in their villages and they are forced to migrate to Mumbai. They are helpless and without roots, having to reside in the slums since they have no financial capacity to take up any permane
Bajaj Auto Ltd. vs. Rajendra Kumar
Bajaj Auto Ltd. vs. Bhojane Gopinath
Divisional Manager Aravali Golf Club vs. Chander Hass & Another
Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals vs. Workmen
Mahendra Jain vs. Indore Development Authority
Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand & Others
Shrirampur Municipal Council vs. V.K. Borade
Workmen of Nilgiri Co-op. Mkt. Society Ltd. vs. State of T.N. and Others
gpt-4
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.