2019 Supreme(Bom) 765

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.K. MENON, J.
MUMBAI VIDYAPEETH KAMGAR SANGHATANA - Appellant
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI THROUGH REGISTRAR, MUMBAI - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 280 of 2019, 2976, 2995, 2992, 3671, 12138, 12139, 14039 of 2018; Writ Petition (L) No. 2138, 2147, 2483, 2484, 2485, 2486, 2487 of 2018, 12, 67, 68 of 2019
Decided on : 03-05-2019

Headnote:

Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 – Sections 3, 8, 14 – Unfair Labour Practices – Orders impugned are passed by the Industrial Court holding that the University had engaged in unfair labour practices under item no.6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971– The university was restrained from terminating services of large number of employees without following due process of law. – Before entering upon the factual background it is necessary to mention that among these 18 petitions, 10 are filed by the aggrieved employees in various categories and some unions. 8 are cross petitions filed by the university. – Two petitions and two cross petitions of these 18 petitions were filed on the Appellate Side and the remaining 14 on the Original Side. – The table below provides a birds eye view of the composition of the parties in these petitions, the orders impugned therein and number of employees involved and their categories. – Held, Reason for the impugned order omitting to grant relief on the basis of unfair labour practices under Item no. 5 is not clear. – The impugned order has clearly held that temporary workers had been continued for years depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees. Inherent in that finding, is the partiality shown to one set of workers. – Item nos. 5 and 6 share common elements. – Item 5 by itself operates in a space where favouritism or partiality is shown to one set of workers. – These need not be temporary workers. It will apply to all workers. – However item 6 is restricted to persons employed as badlis, casuals or temporary employees and continuing them for years together in that capacity with the intention of depriving them of privileges of the permanent employees. – Persons subjected to such deprivation will include the favourtism or partiality shown to the other set and in the facts of the present case since there are different sets of employees working in the same capacity some of whom are permanent and some who are temporary. item 6 would also operate independent of item no. 5 in respect of persons who are engaged in as badlis and casual temporary labour and those who have no fellow peers, viz engaged as permanent employees. In the instant case in almost all categories of employees, the university has permanent and temporary persons. – Court is therefore of the view that the Industrial Court was required to find the university guilty of unfair labour practices under item 5 as well. – Court have reached the universitys challenge cannot succeed whereas the employees are entitled to relief and accordingly the following order is passed – Impugned judgments to the extent they hold that the respondent university is not guilty of unfair labour practices under Item 5 of Schedule IV is set aside. – Court hold that the facts reveal that the university has committed unfair labour practice under Item no. 5 and 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. – Order Accordingly