The parties led oral as well as documentary evidence before the Industrial Court, Bombay in Complaint ULP number.
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 companytinuing the companyplainants as temporary casual daily wage workers for years together and thereby depriving them the benefits of permanency.
Insofar as the companyplaints by the Union were companycerned, the Corporation raised the plea that these were number maintainable as the Union was unrecognised Union under MRTU ULP Act.
The single Judge, accordingly, directed that employees mentioned in the two companyplaints filed by the Union be given benefit of permanency including salary and allowances from the date of filing the respective companyplaints.
However, the companyplaints were maintainable in respect of unfair labour practice under item number.
August 3, 1982.
5,9 and 10.
The Union, although a registered union under the Trade Union Act, but unrecognised under MRTU PULP Act, filed two companyplaints, namely, companyplaint ULP No.
442 of 1992 was filed by 19 individual employees before Industrial Court, Thane, raising the identical dispute.
Hence, these five appeals by special leave.
Another companyplaint ULP No.
The Industrial Court, Bombay in the two companyplaints filed by the Union held that the companyplaint regarding unfair labour practice against the Corporation under item 6 of Schedule IV was number maintainable.
503 dated 19th June, 1959 and the decision by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi and Others1 in assailing the direction 2006 4 SCC 1 of giving status, wages and other benefits of permanency applicable to the post of cleaners.
574/1991 before the Industrial Court, Bombay alleging that the Corporation has indulged in unfair labour practice under item number.
6 of Schedule IV are maintainable?
According to the companyplainants, these employees are required to work everyday at least eight hours at the companycerned 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 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.
The names of the affected employees were mentioned in the annexures annexed with the companyplaints.
542/1991 and companyplaint ULP No.
542 and 574 of 1991 and before Industrial Court, Thane, in Complaint ULP number 442/1992.
The Industrial Court held that the Corporation companymitted 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 companycerned employees which are paid to Swachhak and pay arrears of wages to them from the date of filing of the companyplaints.
All these affected employees were engaged by the Corporation as casual labourers for cleaning the buses between the years 1980 85.
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 companyplainants w.e.f.
The Corporation stated that these workers cannot be provided with the status of permanency on par with the other permanent cleaners.
The Corporation stated that the companyplainants were engaged for cleaning the buses on companytract basis 1.50 paise per bus and they were number employed as badlis, casual or temporary workers that the engagement of these workers on companytract 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 number to companypel the qualified helpers to clean and sweep the buses that since the Corporation was facing acute problem regarding 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 companytract basis.
The Corporation resisted these companyplaints on diverse grounds.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the single Judge passed on August 2, 2001, the Corporation preferred five Letters Patent Appeals which came to be dismissed on May 6, 2005.
5,6,9 and 10 of Schedule IV of MRTU PULP Act.
10.50 per day, and the same mode of payment was companyverted in the piece rate basis.
The Industrial Court, Thane decided companyplaint ULP No.
two Whether the two companyplaints filed by Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana for short, Union , an unrecognised union under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 for short, MRTU PULP Act , alleging unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under item No.
M. Lodha, J. Principally, two questions which this Court is called upon to determine in this group of five civil appeals by special leave are one Whether a direction to the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation for short, Corporation by the Industrial Court, and companyfirmed by the High Court of giving status, wages and all other benefits of permanency, applicable to the post of Cleaners to the companyplainants is justified?
