Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

challenging the judgment and order dated 13-7-2005 passed by the Industrial Court, Bhandara, in Complaint (ULPA) No.55 of 2001. The Industrial Court has partly allowed the complaint filed by the respondents under Section 28 read with Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, "the MRTU & PULP Act") by directing the petitioners/employers to take affirmative action of regularizing the respondents/complainants in service with effect from 1-1-1997 as Van Majoor in Group-D category and to make them payment of difference of wages in the said post with effect from 1-10-2001. The Industrial Court has also granted a declaration that the petitioners/employers have wp3967.06.odt engaged themselves in unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act by issuing the order dated 14-9-2001 directing the respondents/complainants to work under the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS).

2. The facts of the case are as under :

The respondents filed Complaint (ULP) No.680 of 2001 in the Industrial Court invoking the provisions of Section 28 read with Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule Iv of the MRTU & PULP Act, alleging that they have been continuously working in the service of the petitioners/employers on daily-rated basis as Majdoors since 1987-88 and they are being paid with the salary on Nominal Muster Roll ("NMR"). It is alleged that the respondents/complainants are performing regular nature of work and the petitioners/employers are continuing them on daily-rated basis for years together, denying them the benefits of permanency. It is further alleged in the complaint that the other employees working, like the respondents/complainants, have been appointed on regular basis and they are being paid with their salary in the pay-scale applicable to the post on which they are working. They are enjoying the benefits of permanency including T.A., D.A., C.A., increments, etc., and such benefits are not being extended to the respondents/complainants. It is alleged that the persons, who were earlier appointed under the EGS, are shown senior to the respondents/complainants in the seniority list maintained by the petitioners/employers and all those persons have been regularized in service by issuing the Government Resolution dated 31-1-1996 and this wp3967.06.odt treatment is denied to the respondents/complainants. It is alleged that in spite of normal work being available, the respondents/complainants are posted to work under EGS.

3. In the background of the aforesaid averments, the relief was claimed in the said complaint to declare that the petitioners/employers are engaged in unfair labour practices covered by Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act and the affirmative action was also claimed of directing the petitioners/employers to regularize the services of the respondents/complainants and to place them in the appropriate pay-scale applicable to the post on which they are working. It was also claimed for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 14-9-2001 by which the respondents/complainants were asked to work under the EGS.

8. This Court has taken a view that the employment under the EGS is not an employment in any industry. In the light of this view, the wp3967.06.odt Industrial Court has recorded the finding that by transferring the services of the respondents/complainants under the EGS, the petitioners/employers have committed an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. This finding cannot be sustained. To transfer the employees to work under the EGS to deprive them the work in the industry, is not an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. There is neither any award, settlement, agreement or statutory provision, which either confers any right upon the respondents/complainants to get the job other than one under the EGS, nor there is any prohibition to the petitioners/employers to provide the work to the respondents/complainants under the EGS. The Industrial Court has, therefore, committed an error in holding that the work performed by the respondents/complainants under the EGS has to be treated as a normal work performed in the industry. The provision of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act is not at all attracted in the present case.