SANJAY SHALIKRAM INGLE Vs. LOKMAT PROPRIETORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India is to common order dated 21/7/2009 passed below Exh. 2 and 12 by the Industrial Court at Nagpur in ULP Complaints Nos.209 to 215 of 2009 filed under Section 28 read with schedule IV items 7 and 9 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as 'the MRTU Act' for short). Industrial Court has held that in previous litigation between parties the entitlement to permanency was already settled and hence, subsequent ULP Complaints which only sought its execution needed to be filed only under Section 50 of MRTU Act. It therefore dismissed ULP Complaints No. 209 to 215 of 2009 as not maintainable and as timebarred. Hence with the consent of parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and Writ Petitions are heard finally.

(2.) Undisputed facts in relation to previous litigation between parties reveal that by the common order dated 12.02.2002 the Industrial Court allowed seven earlier ULP complaints filed on 19/10/1996 under Section 28 of MRTU Act against present respondent. Those seven complainants are petitioners in these seven writ petitions before this Court. They had claimed permanency and consequential benefits as per provisions of Model Standing Orders after completion of 240 days contending that by not extending to them the said benefits, the respondent employer had indulged in unfair labour practice falling under Item 9 of Schedule IV of Act No. I of 1972. Said item makes failure to implement award, settlement, agreement etc., an unfair labour practice. The complainants there had filed applications under Section 30(2) of MRTU Act claiming as interim relief the minimum wages as per provisions of Minimum Wages Act. Those applications were rejected on 29.04.1998. Thereafter, the complainants sought amendment in those ULP Complaints pointing out termination of their services with effect from 01.05.1998. The respondent/ employer filed written statement and denied relationship of employer and employee. It was stated that all complainants were employees privately engaged by the officers in the employment of the employer and on some occasions they could have visited the establishment in connection with domestic work of said officer. It was contended that the respondent never recruited any such complainant. It was further stated that for filling in the posts with it, the vacancies are advertised, applications are invited and after interview, the successful candidate is given appointment order in writing. All this procedure was not followed in the case of petitioners and none of them was in fact in employment of present respondent. With this defence, the petitioner filed applications for dismissal of complaint on the ground that as the employer and employee relationship was in dispute, the Industrial Court could not have entertained ULP Complaint at all. That application was rejected and when matter came before this Court, on 27.11.2002 in view of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vividh Kamgar Sabha vs. Kalyani Steels Ltd.,2001 1 SCC 381, and as also judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Bottling vs. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena, 2002 1 LLJ 380, the learned Single Judge allowed all those petitions. The complainants then filed LPA No.172 of 2003 to 178 of 2003 and the Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 13.07.2007 allowed those Letters Patent Appeals and restored the matter back before the Single Judge for scrutiny of remaining controversy. This judgment of Division Bench was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court but then the Hon'ble Apex Court did not grant leave. After said rejection by the Hon. Apex Court, a review was filed before the Division Bench of this Court and rejection of that review was also assailed in SLP again, which came to be rejected. In these circumstances, those writ petitions were considered by me in Lokmat Proprietors Vs.Prabhakar Rambhauji Choudhari, 2009 2 MhLJ 369. I did not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in the findings reached by the Industrial Court and hence that challenge by the employer was dismissed on 10/10/2008. The employer then filed LPA before this Court and then an SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Said SLP is stated to be pending.

(3.) On 8/6/2009 or thereabout the petitioners filed present ULP Complaints 209 to 215 of 2009 and asked for wages as also other benefits according to the provisions of various awards like Palekar award, Bachawat award and Manisana award applicable to working journalists and claimed that failure to extend the same to them constituted an unfair labour practice. By other prayer, in addition to amount determined as above, they also sought compensation at 33% of that amount or interest thereon at 18% (which ever higher) as they are made victims of an unfair labour practice. In short the grievance after permanency is in respect of benefits and salary/ salaries in appropriate pay scale as per their occupation as specified in different awards governing service conditions in news paper industry. Though no particular amount as such is claimed in complainants, vide applications at Exh.2 under S.30(2) for grant of interim relief, directions to employer to pay 75% of the amount claimed in complaints during its pendency was sought. This application was replied on 10/7/2009 by respondent/employer pointing out that ULP Complaints were for implementation of order of the Industrial Court dated 12/2/2002 which already held complainants entitled to permanency after completion of 240 days of service 'with all consequential benefits'. Hence item 7 or item 9 were not at all applicable and as benefits needed to be calculated and recovered, recourse to provisions of S. 50 of the MRTU Act was only permitted. They also pointed out that S. 28 could not be read as substitute of S. 50 MRTU Act as both prescribed different periods of limitation. They also pointed out the forum of Labour Court made available for such recoveries by S. 17 of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees ( Conditions of Service & Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955 i.e., 'Working Journalists Act' for short. They pointed out that the details of wages worked out by employee were not placed on record and as the claim was for period prior to 1/5/1998, it was barred by limitation. With all most same plea, the employer also filed separate applications below Exh.12 for dismissal of ULP Complaints. On 18/7/2009 petitioners filed their reply to Exh. 12 denying all challenges and contending that unfair labour practice was occurring day to day and their complaints were not time barred. Impugned common order is passed in this background below these Exhs. 2 and 12 by the Industrial Court. It may be stated here that though in Ex. 12 contention that Working Journalists Act is a special Act and hence, MRTU Act or remedy under it stands impliedly repealed has been raised, before this Court no such argument has been advanced.