Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Maharashtra State Road Trans.Corp. ... vs Casteribe Rajya P. Karmchari ... on 28 August, 2009
9.2 The Industrial Tribunal, as we notice has relied on the
judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of
Maharashtra SRTC versus Casteribe Rajya Parivahan
Karmchari Sanghatana (2009) 8 SCC 556. However, that
was in the context of holding that continuing the workmen on
a daily wage basis would amount to unfair labour practice.
Court In The Case Of Secretary, State Of ... vs . Uma on 9 April, 2015
along with dearness allowance as revised from time to time to
temporary employees engaged on a daily basis as ad-hoc
employees, employees engaged on casual basis as contract
appointees and the like. Referring to the judgment in the case
of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4
SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagjitsingh
& Ors., (supra) considered the judgment in paragraph 48
thereof, wherein it reproduced paragraphs 44 and 48 of the
judgment in the case of Umadevi(supra), which are
reproduced herein:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971
Mahatma Phule Agricultural University ... vs Nasik Zilla Sheth Kamgar Union And Ors on 24 July, 2001
However, we also need to consider and accept the ratio in the
judgement of Mahatama Phule University (Supra) that
mere inaction on the part of the State employer to create
posts would not mean unfair labour practice on the part of the
employer. In the facts on hand it has come on record that the
Tribunal while considering and granting the benefit of
regularisation was taking the set up as on 31.10.2007 and in
absence of any material except the testimony of the Chief
Page 21 of 29
C/LPA/1036/2016 JUDGMENT
Officer at Exh.20 there was no evidence before it to conclude
that the Municipality had indulged in unfair labour practice.
No material was on record to show that in fact 29 posts of
clerks were vacant as recorded by the Tribunal. Therefore, we
do not approve the directions given by the Industrial Tribunal
as far as the claim of the claimants has been allowed with
respect to the respondents being given the benefit of
regularisation and permanency under the Municipality. The
directions of the Tribunal and findings of fact and
observations made by the learned Single Judge in para 4.1
merit interference.
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Umrala Gram Panchayat vs The Sec.Municipal Employee Union & Ors on 27 March, 2015
As far as the judgment in the case of
Umrala Gram Panchayat (supra) is concerned, it was the
case where the Supreme Court specifically came to a
conclusion that continuing such workmen and denying them
benefit of permanency was an unfair labour practice. We
would dwell upon the finding as to whether denial of such
benefit of permanency or the benefit of pay-scale akin to
permanent employees is an unfair labour practice later. In
absence of any specific contention in the Statement of Claim
or a reference on that issue, and particularly in view of the
fact that on the assessment of the facts, we find that there
were no sanctioned vacant posts available with the
Municipality. Merely, because the respondents continued to
work and were not regularized would not ipsofacto amount to
unfair labour practice or entitle such claimants the benefit of
Page 20 of 29
C/LPA/1036/2016 JUDGMENT
regularisation.
1