MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE COTTON GROWERS MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. versus SHRIPATI PANDURANG KHADE & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 472 · Decided: 11-10-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE COTTON 
GROWERS MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. 
v. 
SHRIPATI PANDURANG KHADE & ORS. ETC. 
OCTOBER 11, 1988 
[MURARI MOHON DUTT ANDS. NATARAJAN,JJ.] 
Maharashtra Recognition. of Trade Unions and Prevention of 
Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971-Section 5 (d)-Duty of Industrial 
Court to decide complaints relating to unfair labour practices except 
those falling in item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act. 
· 
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions· a.nd Prevention of 
Unfair labour Practices Act, 1971-Unfair Labour Practice-What 
is-An industrial award declared employees permanent-Appellant 
treated them as seasonal or temporary employees. Held~Amounts to 
unfair labour practice. 
Industrial Court-Duty of-Must give an opportunity co appli-
cants to explain the delay if the complaints are barred by limitation. 
The respondents were earlier the employees of an organisation 
E 
called the . .Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation 
Limited (Marketing Federation). Later a new organisation namely the 
Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation 
Ltd., the appellant herein, was formed and some of the activities of the 
Marketing Federation were assigned to it. By letter dated 10th August, 
1984, the Government directed the Marketing Federation that the 
F 
Services of the seasonal staff should be terminated and those of the 
regular staff be placed at tbe disposal of the new organisation. As the 
Marketing Federation and the appellant failed and neglected to give 
them the permanent status, the respondents made a complaint before 
the Industrial Court complaining of unfair labour practices on· the part 
of the Marketing Federation as also the appellant herein as contained in 
G 
Items 6 and 9 of the Schedule IV of the Act. The workers stated that 
even when there was an award in their favour by the Industrial 
Tribunal declaring them as permanent employees, yet the Marketing 
Federation and the appellant did not give them the status of permanent 
employees. The Industrial Court took the view (i) that the complaints 
made by the respondents did not come under items nos. 6 and 9 but they 
H 
cam~ under item No. l and as such he could not decide the complaints in 
472 
STATE COOPERATIVE COTTON v. S.P. KHADE 
473 
view of section S(d) of the Act, (ii) that there was no unfair labour 
practice on the part of the Marketing Federation or the appellant, and 
(iii) that the complaints were barred by limitation. The Industrial Court 
dismissed the complaints of the respondents. Feeling aggrieved the 
respondents filed writ petitions before the High Court and the same 
were allowed. Hence these appeals by special leave. The appellant con-
tended that the award of the Industrial Court was not binding on them. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court, 
HELD: In view of.the Award, it must be held that the respon-
dents were the permanent employees of the Marketing Federation, and 
that after the constitution of the appellant and the transfer of"the 
employees of the Marketing Federation to the appellant, the appellant 
was bound to accept the respondents as permanent employees and not 
to treat them as seasonal employees or temporary employees. This act 
on the part of the appellant amounts to unfair labour practice. [476E-F] 
There is no justification for the finding of the Industrial Court 
that the complaints made by the respondents do not come within the 
purview of Items Nos. 6 and 9 of the Schedule IV of the Maharashtra 
Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour 
Practices Act, 1971. No reason has been given by the Industrial Court 
why the complaints come within Item No. 1 of Schedule IV and, as such, 
can be decided only by the Labour Court and not by the Industrial 
Tribunal. The complaints made by the respondents are clear and 
specific and there was no scope for categorising them as complaints 
under Item No. 1 of Schedule IV. [476G-H; 477] 
It has been assumed by the Industrial Tribunal that the respon-
dents came to now that they were being appointed as seasonal 
employees on the respective dates of their appointment letters. There is, 
however, no material on record to show on what dates the appointment 
letters were served on the respondents. In the circumstances, the 
Industrial Court was not at all justified in holding that the complaints 
filed by the respondents were barred by limitation. Even assuming that 
the complaints were barred by limitat

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.