ACWORTH LEPROSY HOSPITAL Vs. R N BADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common questions of the facts and law arise in both the petitions and are against the same order, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 69 of 2000 is the Corporation whereas the Writ petition No. 1716 of 2000 is at the instance of the employees. The challenge to the impugned order at the instance of the Corporation is on the ground that the direction against the hospital, the opponent No. 2 before the Labour Court, is bad in law as there was no existing right in favour of the employees to claim wages under the provisions of law contained in section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act" ). The petition at the instance of the employees is mainly on the ground that the Labour court erred in dismissing the application against the Corporation ignoring the facts that the assets and liabilities of the hospital, opponent No. 2 before the Labour Court, were taken over by the Corporation and the appointment of the employees by the Corporation was subsequent to the order of the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 560 of 1997 and subject to the decision in the Writ Petition No. 1712 of 1991 which was filed by the hospital against the judgment of the Industrial Court in the said complaint and the said writ petition was dismissed and thereby the order of the Industrial Court against the hospital had attained finality, and the Corporation being its successor, it is bound by the said order, more particularly bearing in mind the provisions of section 29 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the MRTU and pulp Act") as well as the letter of appointment given by the Corporation to the employees. Besides that, the interference in the order of the Industrial Court by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2329 of 1991 filed by the Corporation Court was limited to the extent of setting aside of the finding in relation to the unfair labour practice and not in relation to the direction for reinstatement of the employees with continuity in service.

(2.) FEW facts which are relevant for the decision, in the matter are that in 1890 a hospital by name Acworth Leprosy Hospital for the treatment of Leprosy Patients came to be established at Wadala, Mumbai. Though it was under the management of the trust, most of the trustees were appointed by the corporation and the financial burden for the management of the hospital was mainly borne by the Corporation for last many years. A scheme called "detection and Control of Leprosy Cases in Greater Bombay" was launched prior to taking over of the hospital by the Corporation in the year 1978. But the said scheme was terminated and discontinued from 4/08/1987 and consequently services of 25 employees, who were specifically employed for giving effect to the said scheme, 16 being Para Medical Workers and 9 being Registration Assistants were also terminated with effect from 4/08/1987. Thereupon the employees filed complaint in the Industrial Court alleging adoption of unfair labour practice under Item No. 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act. After hearing the parties, the same was allowed by the Industrial Court by its judgment and order dated 1/11/1990, holding that the respondents to the said proceedings, viz. the Corporation as well as the said hospital were indulging in unfair labour practice, as was alleged in complaint and therefore directed the said respondents to desist from engaging in said unfair labour practice and further to withdraw and cancel the notice of termination of service of the said employees, whose identity was disclosed in annexure A to the complaint filed by them and to reinstate them with continuity in service and to pay them full backwages and other allowances which they were entitled to immediately prior to 4/06/1987.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the Industrial Court the Corporation as well as the hospital filed writ petitions, being Writ Petition no. 2329 of 1991 and 1712 of 1991, respectively. At the time of hearing on admission of the Writ Petition No. 1712 of 1991, Rule was issued and the execution of the judgment and order of the Industrial Court in (ULP) Complaint No. 560 of 1997 was stayed. During the pendency of the said petitions a joint meeting was held between the representatives of the employees and the Corporation on 4/01/1994 and the minutes thereof were drawn. One of the clauses of the said minutes which is sought to be relied upon by the Corporation in support of its contention reads thus: