DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus KALAWATI PANDURANG FULZELE on 31 January 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 30.01.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature atGBombay at Nagpur in LPA No. 37 of 2008 by which the Division Benchof the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed thejudgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing andsetting aside the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Tribunaland restoring the award passed by the Labour Court directing the appellant H

to reinstate the respondent with back wages, the employer –Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred toMSRTC”) has preferred the present appeal.

2. That the respondent herein was appointed as sweeper firstly,by written order of appointment dated 08.06.1989 and by another orderdated 01.04.1991 on a consolidated honorarium of Rs.500/- per month.That there was an increase of Rs.50/- per month in her consolidatedhonorarium. She continuously worked as sweeper till she was lastlyterminated on 01.08.1994. It appears that her husband was working as acoolie in MSRTC, Chandrapur Depot and suddenly he became blind andhis family thus abruptly went in a state of penury. Therefore, she wasemployed as a sweeper on contractual basis. She filed a complaint underSection 28 read with item (1) of Schedule IV of the MaharashtraRecognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour PracticesAct, 1971 before the Labour Court, Chandrapur against the appellant –MSRTC. In the complaint basically she challenged her termination. Itwas her case in the complaint that she worked without any break andwhile terminating her services she was neither paid any retrenchmentcompensation nor notice of one month or wages in lieu thereof weregiven to her. No seniority list was either prepared or published and therewas violation of Section 25-G and Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes Act(Bombay) Rules, 1957.

2.1 The Labour Court vide judgment and award dated 20.06.2002directed the appellant to reinstate her with back wages on the groundthat termination was in breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the IndustrialDisputes Act. The Labour Court also held that the provision of Section2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act shall be applicable.

2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed bythe Labour Court of reinstatement and back wages, the MSRTC preferredrevision petition before the Industrial Court and by judgment and orderdated 01.07.2003, the Industrial Court allowed the said RevisionApplication No.339 of 2002 and set aside the judgment and award passedby the Labour Court dated 20.06.2002 in Complaint (ULPA) No. 135 of1994.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and orderpassed by the Industrial Court, the respondent-workman preferred writpetition before the High Court being Writ Petition No. 3819 of 2003. Byjudgment and order dated 04.06.2007, the learned Single Judge of the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AHigh Court allowed the said writ petition and set aside the judgment andorder passed by the Industrial Court and restored the award passed bythe Labour Court of reinstatement and back wages.

2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and orderpassed by the learned Single Judge restoring the award passed by theBLabour Court of reinstatement and back wages and holding the terminationof the respondent in breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the IndustrialDisputes Act, the MSRTC preferred the Letters Patent Appeal beforethe Division Bench of the High Court and by the impugned judgmentand order, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the saidappeal, hence the MSRTC has preferred the present appeal.C

3. Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, learned counsel appearing on behalfof the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts andcircumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a grave errorin ordering reinstatement of the respondent with back wages. It issubmitted that the High Court has materially erred in observing and/orDconfirming the order passed by the Labour Court holding that there wasa breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. It issubmitted that the appointment of the respondent was on purelycontractual basis and for a particular period and on completion of thecontractual period, her services were put to end. It is therefore submittedEthat when she was serving as a part-timer on contractual basis, Section2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act shall not be applicable andtherefore there is no question of breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G ofthe Industrial Disputes Act as held by the Labour Court and confirmedby the High Court.F3.1 Making above submissions, it is prayed to allow the presentappeal.

4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri SubhasishBhowmick, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent –workman.G4.1 It is submitted that as such there are concurrent findings G4.1 It is submitted that as such there are concurrent findingsrecorded by the three courts below that the termination of the respondentwas in breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act.It is submitted that once it is found that the termination was in breach ofSections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Courtrightly ordered reinstatement with back wages.H

4.2 It is further submitted by Shri Subhasish Bhowmick, learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- workman that as suchthe complaint was made by the respondent alleging unfair labour practices.It is submitted that the respondent was appointed in place of her husband,who was serving as a coolie in the MSRTC, however, unfortunately, hebecame blind and, in his place, the respondent was appointed. It issubmitted that as she continuously worked till her services wereterminated and there was no break in service, the termination is rightlyheld to be in violation of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial DisputesAct.

4.3 Making above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the presentappeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respectiveparties at length.

6. It is true that as such all the three courts below (except theIndustrial Court) held the termination of the respondent – workman inbreach of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act and,therefore, the Labour Court ordered reinstatement with back wages.However, it is required to be noted that even as per the appointmentorder produced by the respondent herself, her appointment was oncontractual basis at a fixed salary/honorarium of Rs. 500/- per month.Though, it is a case on behalf of the appellant that her appointment wasa fixed term appointment, however, considering the appointment order,the appointment was till further orders. Be that it may, the fact remainsthat her appointment was on contractual basis and on a fixed salary/honorarium of Rs.500/- per month. It also cannot be disputed that sheworked approximately for four years as a sweeper. As such there wereno specific averments/allegations in the complaint on any unfair labourpractice. Even there was no specific finding recorded by the LabourCourt that there was any unfair labour practice adopted by the MSRTC.The only finding recorded by the Labour Court was that the terminationwas in breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective partiesand considering the nature of appointment of the respondent namely ascontractual appointment on a fixed salary/honorarium of Rs.500/- permonth and she worked for approximately four years, we are of the opinionthat in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, if a lumpsum compensation A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Aof Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) is awarded, it will meet theends of justice. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,when the appointment was purely on contractual basis and on a fixedsalary/honorarium of Rs.500/- per month, the order of reinstatementwith back wages was not warranted and instead if the lumpsumcompensation is awarded in lieu of reinstatement and back wages asBobserved hereinabove, it will meet the ends of justice.

8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, presentappeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and order passed bythe Division Bench of the High Court and the judgment and award passedby the Labour Court ordering reinstatement with back wages is herebyCmodified and in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, the appellant isdirected to pay a lumpsum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees ThreeLakhs only) to the respondent, to be paid within a period of four weeksfrom today.

Present appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. In theDfacts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

E

Nidhi Jain

Appeal partly allowed.

F

G

H