Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
The Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Bhagyashree Pravin Kulkarni - Respondent
Writ Petition No.13300 Of 2023
Decided On : 05-01-2024
MRTU & PULP Act - Employment Dispute - Section 28, Item Nos.3, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV - The court discussed the Respondent's complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act seeking a declaration that her transfer to a contractor's muster-roll was illegal and direction for regularization/permanency. The court highlighted the interim relief granted, the nature of the additional relief sought, and the errors in the Industrial Court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The Respondent, employed by the Petitioner-Federation, filed a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act, seeking a declaration of illegal transfer and regularization. The Industrial Court granted interim relief directing the Petitioner to maintain status-quo. The Respondent filed an application for additional interim relief, which was allowed by the Industrial Court, leading to the present Petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Industrial Court erred in entertaining the application for additional interim relief and in granting the same. It noted that the Respondent's services were already protected by the earlier interim order, and the additional relief sought was baseless.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the Respondent's transfer to a contractor's muster-roll, entitlement to regularization, and the granting of additional interim relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Industrial Court committed a jurisdictional error in granting additional interim relief, as the Respondent's services were already protected by the earlier order, and the relief sought was not warranted.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the Industrial Court's order granting additional interim relief was set aside.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for parties, Petition is taken up for hearing.
2. Petition is filed by The Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd., a Federal Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, challenging the Order dated 28 June 2023 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai, on application at Exh.U-11 filed by the Respondent in Complaint (ULP) No.175 of 2019. By the impugned Order, the Industrial Court has granted interim protection to the Respondent in the form of direction to the Petitioners to pay her the wages from the date of her transfer to contractor along with all consequential benefits of annual increment till final disposal of the main complaint. The Petitioners are further directed to allow the Respondent to mark her attendance on the muster-roll till final disposal of the main complaint.
3. Considering the narrow controversy involved in the present Petition, it is not necessary to narrate all the facts in detail. Suffice it to record that the Respondent came to be employed as a Typist on daily wage basis by the Petitioners – Federation allegedly to cope up with the work of temporary nature. It is Respondent’s case that her engagement was made on intermittent basis due to temporary rise in the work. The Respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No.175 of 2019 under the provisions of Section 28 read with Item Nos.3, 6, 9 and 10 of Schecule IV of The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (‘MRTU & PULP Act’) seeking a declaration that action of the Petitioners in transferring her from their regular muster-roll to the muster-roll of M/s. Brisk India Pvt. Ltd. (‘Brisk’) was illegal. She further sought direction for grant of regularization/permanency on the post of Typist. The complaint was filed alleging that despite being appointed as Typist on the roll of Petitioners-Federation with effect from 1 September 2016 and despite completion of 240 days of continuous service, she was not regularized and her services are exploited on payment of daily wages of Rs.500/- per day which were subsequently increased to Rs.600/- per day with effect from 1 March 2017. The Respondent alleged in her complaint that she noticed on 31 May 2019 that since February 2019, the Petitioners-Federation was routing her wages through Brisk, a contractor providing contractual workers to the Federation. That, her signature was taken on a blank page on a previous occasion which was utilized for attaching her services with Brisk, without her knowledge or consent. The Respondent is aggrieved by the action of the Federation in transferring her services to Brisk and has accordingly approached the Industrial Court by filing Complaint (ULP) No.175 of 2019.
4. In her complaint, the Respondent filed application at Exh.U-2 for interim relief. The application was allowed by Order dated 30 April 2022 directing Petitioners to maintain status-quo with regard to the employment of the Respondent till disposal of the complaint. Petitioners are not aggrieved by the said interim order dated 30 April 2022 and have apparently implemented the same. What has given rise to the present litigation is the action of the Respondent in filing further application for grant of additional interim relief/clarification on 14 September 2022 at Exh.U-11. The application is premised on prima facie finding recorded by the Industrial Court in order dated 30 April 2022 that the Respondent is an employee of Petitioner – Federation and not that of Brisk. On the basis of this finding, she addressed letter to the Petitioners for payment of wages through Federation and not through Brisk. Since the Petitioners continued paying wages through Brisk, she filed application at Exh.U-11 seeking additional relief seeking following prayers:
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Industrial Court's grant of additional interim relief was unsustainable and interfered with the existing employment arrangement, as protec....
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....
Transfer is a standard condition of service, and can only be challenged on grounds of mala fides, which require substantial proof of personal bias or improper motive.
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
