Maharashtra State Road Trans.Corp. ... vs Casteribe Rajya P. Karmchari ...

2. The Union, although a registered union under the Trade Union Act, but unrecognised under MRTU & PULP Act, filed two complaints, namely, complaint (ULP) No. 542/1991 and complaint (ULP) No. 574/1991 before the Industrial Court, Bombay alleging that the Corporation has indulged in unfair labour practice under item nos. 5,6,9 and 10 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act. The names of the affected employees were mentioned in the annexures annexed with the complaints. All these affected employees were engaged by the Corporation as casual labourers for cleaning the buses between the years 1980-85. According to the complainants, these employees are required to work everyday at least eight hours at the concerned depot of the Corporation; the work done by these employees is of permanent nature but they are being paid a paltry amount; and that the posts of 2 sweepers/cleaners are available in the Corporation yet these employees have been kept on casual and temporary basis for years together denying them the benefit of permanency.

4. The Corporation resisted these complaints on diverse grounds. Insofar as the complaints by the Union were concerned, the Corporation raised the plea that these were not maintainable as the Union was unrecognised Union under MRTU & ULP Act. The Corporation stated that the complainants were engaged for cleaning the buses on contract basis @ 1.50 paise per bus and they were not employed as `badlis', casual or temporary workers; that the engagement of these workers on contract basis is purely of casual nature; that prior to 1980, the Corporation buses were being cleaned by regular helpers but some problems arose amongst the employees later on and, it was decided not to compel the qualified helpers to clean and sweep the buses; that since the Corporation was facing acute problem regarding 3 cleaning of the buses and the negotiations were going on with the respective unions, it was decided that those who volunteer their services by reporting at the respective depot may be allowed to clean the buses on contract basis. The Corporation stated that these workers cannot be provided with the status of permanency on par with the other permanent cleaners.

6. The Industrial Court, Bombay in the two complaints filed by the Union held that the complaint regarding unfair labour practice against the Corporation under item 6 of Schedule IV was not maintainable. However, the complaints were maintainable in respect of unfair labour practice under item nos. 5,9 and 10. The Industrial Court held that the Corporation committed unfair labour practice under items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act and vide order dated May 2, 1995 the Corporation was directed to pay equal wages to the concerned employees which are paid to 4 Swachhak and pay arrears of wages to them from the date of filing of the complaints. The Industrial Court, Thane decided complaint ULP No. 442/1992 vide its order dated February 6, 1997 and held that the Corporation indulged in unfair labour practice under item 6 of Schedule IV by continuing the complainants as temporary/casual/daily wage workers for years together and thereby depriving them the benefits of permanency. The Industrial Court, Thane, accordingly, directed the Corporation to cease and desist from the said unfair practice within one month from the date of the order by giving status, wages and all other benefits of permanency applicable to the post of cleaners to the complainants w.e.f. August 3, 1982.

3. On receipt of a complaint under sub-section (1), the Court may, if it so considers necessary, first cause an investigation into the said complaint to be made by the Investigating Officer, and direct that a report in the matter may be submitted by him to the Court, within the period specified in the direction.

5. The Investigating Officer shall, after investigating into the complaint under sub-Section (4) submit his report to the Court, within the time specified by it, setting out the full facts and circumstances of the case, and the efforts made by him in settling the complaint. The Court shall, on demand and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed by rules, supply a copy of the report to the complainant and the person complained against.

9. The Court shall forward a copy of its order to the State Government and such officers of the State Government as may be prescribed."

32. The Industrial Court at Bombay in its order dated May 2, 1995 while dealing with Complaint (ULP) Nos. 542 and 574/1991 on the basis of the evidence on record recorded the findings thus:

35. Seen thus, the direction of giving status, wages and all other benefits of permanency applicable to the post of cleaners to the complainants, in the facts and circumstances, is justified and warrants no interference. Question (one) is answered accordingly.

re. : question (two)

43. In what we have discussed above, all these five appeals must fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs.

........................J (Tarun Chatterjee) ........................J (R. M. Lodha) New Delhi August 28, 2009.