AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Respondents filed an Unfair Labour Practice Complaint along with three others under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 ("MRTU and PULP Act" for short) challenging the termination from Non-Muster Roll (NMR) w.e.f. 01.09.1989. The First Labour Court, Nagpur held that the Appellants indulged in unfair labour practice in terminating the services of the Respondents.
The Labour Court directed the Appellants to reinstate the Respondents as unskilled labourers on non-mustor rolls and to pay them backwages from the date of their termination from service.
The Respondents filed another complaint under Section 28 of the MRTU and PULP Act in respect of the unfair labour practices falling under Item Nos. 6 and 9 of Schedule IV to the MRTU and PULP Act. They were aggrieved for not being brought under the converted regular temporary establishment (CRTE) as per the Kalelkar Settlement Award, in spite of their entitlement. The Respondents were engaged as workers under the EGS scheme and their conversion to CRT establishment would entitle them for certain benefits like house rent allowance, etc. The Tribunal declared that the Appellant committed unfair labour practices falling under items 6 & 9 of Schedule IV to the MRTU and PULP Act in not appointing the Respondents as Chowkidars in CRTE. A direction was given to appoint the Respondents to CRTE w.e.f. 19.01.1998 with all consequential benefits.
The Appellants were unsuccessful in challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court as the writ petition filed by them in the High Court was dismissed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the Appellants approached this Court by filing the above appeal.
No interim order was passed by this Court when notice was issued on 16.01.2009. However, leave was granted on 13.08.2010 and contempt proceedings initiated by the respondents were directed to be stayed. The learned counsel for the Appellants fairly submitted that he has instructions that no contempt proceedings were initiated by the Respondents. The respondents were initially appointed on NMR basis in the year 1984-1985. The initial termination of their services was in 1989 which was set aside, and the litigation pertaining to their services being converted to CRTE has been pending for all these years. We are informed that the respondents have retired on attaining the age of superannuation.
In spite of service of notice, the respondents have not appeared before this Court. We have examined the orders passed by the Labour Court, the Industrial Court and the High Court and have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants. No fault can be found with the judgments of the Courts below warranting interference in the matter.
The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application, if any, stand disposed of.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3333 OF 2016
This Appeal is disposed of in terms of the order passed in Civil Appeal No.6658 of 2010 today.