Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N. J. JAMADAR, J.
Lintas India Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Bharatiya Kamgar Sena Praphulban Soc. and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No.2522 Of 2021
Decided On : 23-03-2023
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act - Section 50 - Company - Unfair labour practices - Applicant No. 1 claimed to have right to represent the employees of respondent No. 1- company - Applicant Nos. 2 to 6 were working with respondent No.1-company for several years without the benefit of permanency - Applicant No. 1 filed a complaint being complaint (ULP) No.1161 of 1989, on behalf of applicant Nos. 2 to 6 and two other workmen alleging Unfair Labour Practices within meaning of items 1(a),1(b) of Schedule-II and 3, 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule-IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act - Whether the claimant was basically entitled to the claim and then decide the amount of arrears of dues not paid by the employer – Held, learned Member Industrial Court was of view that it was incumbent upon petitioner to place documents on record to show the wages paid to similarly circumstanced employees - No material was placed to show that petitioner had paid a particular salary in a particular month - If petitioner intended to establish to contrary, petitioner ought to have brought credible material on record, as it was enjoined to maintain muster roll and other documents which would have facilitated the computation of the amount due and payable under the order of the Court - Failure to bring such material on record was at the own peril of petitioner. - An issue which merits consideration is the rate at which the interest is awarded by the Industrial Court - Interest has been ordered to be paid from the date of judgment in complaint (ULP) No. 1161 of 1989 till the date of realisation - Said period exceeds 20 years - It is common knowledge that interest rate moves in cycles - It is rarely static for even a couple of years - Petition stands partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the legality, propriety and correctness of an order passed by the learned Member Industrial Court, Mumbai in Recovery Application (ULP) No.04 of 2018 in complaint (ULP) No.1161 of 1989, whereby and whereunder the Recovery Application came to be partly allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay diverse amount to respondent Nos. 2, 4, 6 and deceased respondent Nos. 3 and 5 – the applicants therein, along with interest at the rate of 10% from 24th December, 1999, the date of judgment in complaint (ULP) No. 1161 of 1989.
2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are hereinafter referred to in the capacity in which they were arrayed before the learned Member Industrial Court in Recovery Application (ULP) No. 04 of 2018.
3. Bharatiya Kamgar Sena – the applicant No. 1 claimed to have right to represent the employees of the respondent No. 1- company. The applicant Nos. 2 to 6 were working with the respondent No.1-company for several years without the benefit of permanency. The applicant No. 1 filed a complaint being complaint (ULP) No.1161 of 1989, on behalf of the applicant Nos. 2 to 6 and two other workmen alleging Unfair Labour Practices within the meaning of items 1(a),1(b) of Schedule-II and 3, 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule-IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (“the Act, 1971”).
4. By judgment and order dated 24th December, 1999, the learned Member Industrial Court, Mumbai was persuaded to allow the said complaint. It was declared that the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 therein, committed the unfair labour practices under Items 3, 5, 6 and 9 of the Schedule- IV of the Act, 1971 and were thus directed to desist from continuing the same. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were also directed to provide the service conditions and benefits of permanent employees to the workmen, in respect of whom complaint was filed, taking into consideration their initial appointment. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were also directed to pay the arrears of those benefits/wages within two months from the date of the said order.
5. The respondents challenged aforesaid judgment and order in this Court in Writ Petition No. 262 of 2000. A learned Single Judge of this Court was persuaded to dismiss the Petition by a judgment and order dated 22nd March, 2000. The respondent No. 1 carried the matter in Appeal before the Division Bench in Appeal No. 408 of 2000. By a judgment and order dated 9th December, 2016, the Division Bench was persuaded to dismiss the Appeal. The Special Leave Petition, being SLP (c) No (s). 12568 of 2017, met the same fate.
6. Upon alleged failure to implement the judgment and order of learned Member Industrial Court in complaint (ULP) No. 1161 of 1989, initially the applicants filed a complaint, being Miscellaneous Criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 42 of 2017 under the provisions of Section 48 (1) of the Act, 1971. The learned Judge Labour Court dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, holding that no sufficient ground was made out to proceed against the accused – respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
7. Thereupon the applicants preferred an application under Section 50 of the Act, 1971, for recovery of the amount ordered to be paid by the Industrial Court in complaint (ULP) No.1161 of 1989. The respondent No. 1- company resisted the application by filing written statement.
8. The learned Member, Industrial Court after appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the applicants and respondent No. 1 and the documents tendered for his perusal, was persuaded to partly allow the application holding, inter alia, that the applicants were entitled to the arrears of the wages and benefits from the date of their employment till the date of their termination, and that since the respondent No. 1-company unjustifiably withheld those wages and benefits, it was liable to
The authority's order under Section 33-C(1) was valid as the employer failed to dispute the existence of a relevant settlement, maintaining wage parity between contractual and regular employees in li....
The appropriate government should act only as an executory court and leave adjudication to the tribunal/labour court. The absence of a pre-determined right in favor of the workmen precluded the issua....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a recovery application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act when the claim....
provision specifically provides that for computing the money value of a benefit accrued to the workman, the Labour Court can appoint the Commissioner for taking necessary evidence. Thus, the scope of....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
