Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
Manish Pitale, J.
Mrs. Pushpa Bhimrao Naik – Appellant
Versus
Government Milk Scheme, Through Its Regional Dairy Development Officer, Civil Lines, Nagpur & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 4067 of 2019
Decided On : 14-09-2022
Mr. Salim I. Khan, for the Appellant; Mr. N.R. Patil, AGP, for the Respondent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that completion of 240 days of continuous service entitles an employee to regularization, and the delay in filing a Complaint should not hinder the entitlement to relief, as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in a similar case.
Headnote:
Unfair Labour Practice - Industrial Dispute - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Section 28, Schedule IV - The judgment discusses the petitioner's challenge to the dismissal of her Complaint under Section 28 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, read with Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV. The court found that the petitioner completed 240 days of continuous service and was entitled to regularization, and that the respondents had committed unfair labour practice. The court relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case to grant relief to the petitioner, directing the regularization of service and entitlement to enhanced salary and pension.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Complaint alleging unfair labour practice as she was deprived of regularization despite completing 240 days of continuous service. The Industrial Court initially dismissed the application for condonation of delay, but it was later allowed by the High Court. The Industrial Court ultimately dismissed the Complaint, stating that the petitioner had ceased to be in service after completing 240 days.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had completed 240 days of continuous service and was entitled to regularization. It held that the respondents had committed unfair labour practice and that the Industrial Court was not justified in dismissing the Complaint. The court also considered the petitioner's appointment on compassionate grounds in 1988 but held that it should not hinder her entitlement to relief.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's entitlement to regularization, the impact of her appointment on compassionate grounds, and the delay in filing the Complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case to establish the petitioner's entitlement to regularization and enhanced benefits, despite the delay in filing the Complaint and her subsequent appointment on compassionate grounds.
Final Decision: The writ petition was partly allowed, quashing the Industrial Court's judgment and directing the regularization of the petitioner's service from the date she completed 240 days of continuous service. The petitioner was entitled to enhanced salary and pension from the date of filing her Complaint, with arrears to be disbursed within three months. The petitioner was also granted enhanced pension from October, 2022. The writ petition was allowed with no costs.
JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the rival parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged judgment and order dated 12/03/2019, passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra (Nagpur Bench), Nagpur, whereby a Complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act'), read with Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV thereof was dismissed.
3. This Court issued notice in the present writ petition on 17/06/2019 and both the respondents were represented by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. On 11/10/2021, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner specifically relied upon judgment and order dated 25/09/2019, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 10064-10075/2010 (Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav Etc. Vs. The State of Maharashtra through its Dairy Manager & Anr). The learned Assistant Government Pleader took time to go through the said judgment and subsequently the present writ petition was posted for final disposal.
4. The claim of the petitioner before the Industrial Court in the Complaint in brief was that the respondents had indulged in unfair labour practice, inasmuch as the petitioner was deprived of regularization of her service despite having completed 240 days of continuous service between September, 1982 to May, 1983. The Complaint was filed along with an application for condonation of delay in the year 2011. Initially, the Industrial Court dismissed the pplication for condonation of delay, due to which the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2389/2017. By judgment and order dated 06/09/2018, the Writ Petition was allowed. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Industrial Court for deciding the Complaint on merits. Consequently, the Complaint, although filed in the year 2011, was registered in the year 2018, as Complaint (ULP) No. 203 of 2018.
5. The Industrial Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 12/03/2019, dismissed the Complaint, primarily on the ground that after completion of 240 days in service, the petitioner had ceased to be in service with the respondents. It was held that no case was made out for holding that the respondent had indulged in unfair labour practice and accordingly, the Complaint was dismissed.
6. Mr. Salim Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that although the petitioner raised grievance before the Industrial Court in the year 2011 and she superannuated on 30/06/2014, that in itself could not be a ground for not considering the relief claimed by the petitioner. It was submitted that since this Court by allowing Writ Petition No.2389/2017, by judgment and order dated 06/09/2018, had condoned the delay in filing Complaint before the Industrial Court, the Complaint ought to have been decided on its own merits, by taking into consideration the facts that emerged from the material available on record. By referring to the material available on record, it was emphasized that the petitioner had completed 240 days of continuous service and, therefore, the respondents had clearly committed an unfair labour practice by failing to give benefit of regularization to the petitioner in the year 1983 itself. It was further submitted that even though the petitioner was subsequently appointed in the year 1988, on compassionate ground, upon the death of her husband, that in itself could not be a factor to not consider the grievance raised on behalf of the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav Etc. Vs. The State of Maharashtra (supra). It was emphasized that in the said case also, concerning the same industry in Konk
