MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. AND ANR. versus CASTERIBE RAJYA P. KARMCHARI SANGHATANA

Citation: [2009] 13 S.C.R. 937 · Decided: 28-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 937 
MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN: 
A 
} 
AND ANR. 
v. 
CASTERIBE RAJYA P. KARMCHARI SANGHATANA 
(Civil Appeal No. 3433 of 2007) 
AUGUST 28, 2009 
B 
[TARUN CljATTERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.) 
-4, 
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and 
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: 
c 
s.30(1)(b) - Employing bad/is, casuals or temporaries 
and to continue them as such for years with object of depriving 
them of the status and privileges of pennanent employees is-
an unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under D 
item 6 of Schedule IV - Once such unfair labour practice on 
... 
th_e part of employer is established, 1ndustrial Courts are 
empowered to issue preventive as well as positive direction 
to an erring employer - *Umadevi case does not denude 
ll)dustrial and Labour Courts of their statutory power under E 
s.30 r.w. s.32 of the Act to order pennanency of the workers 
who were victim of unfair labour practice on the part of the 
employer under item 6 of Schedule IV where the posts on 
which they have been working exists - Standing order 503 -
~ 
Labour Jaws. 
F 
• 
s.21, Schedule IV, Item nos. 2 and 6 - Unrecognized 
union is not competent to file a complaint in so far as unfair 
..,.,, 
labour practices under Item nos. 2 and 6 of Schedule IV of 
the Act is concerned - s.21 creates a bar on unrecognized 
union from acting, appearing or representing any employee 
G 
in a proceeding relating to unfair Jabour practices under items 
,I 
2 and 6 of Schedule IV - On facts, the affected employees in 
the complaints filed by the unrecognized union not entitled 
to the benefits of permanency to the post of cleaners as the 
937 ' 
H 
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 13 (AD.DL.) S.C.R. 
A complaints were not maintainable - But it would be travesty 
of justice if because of non-m!Jintainability of complaints, 
-< 
employees were deprived of. benefits of status, wages and 
permanency when similarly situated employees who filed 
complaint individually were to get benefits of permanency -
B In view of this exceptional situation, for doing complete justice 
between the parties, in exercise of plenary power under Article 
142 of the Constitution, the employees in complaints would 
also get the status, wages and other benefits of permanency 
applicable to the post of cleaners as the employees in the 
.;.. 
c complaint individually filed by the employees - Constitution 
of India, 1950 - Article 142. 
" 
Service law: Creation of posts is not within the domain of 
judicial functions which obviously pertains to the executive -
It is also true that the status of permanency cannot be granted 
D by the Court where no such posts exist and that executive 
functions and powers with regard to the creation of posts 
cannot be affogated by the Courts - Labour laws. 
The questions which arose for consideration in these 
E appeals were whether employees engaged by 
Corporation as casual labourer for cleaning the buses are 
entitled to status, wages and all other benefits of 
permanency as applicable to the post of sweepers/ 
cleaners in the Corporation; and whether complaints filed 
F by an unrecognised union under Maharashtra 
Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair 
. Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act), 
alleging unfair labour practice on· the part of.the employer 
under item No. 6 of Schedule IV were maintainable. 
G 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
H 
HELD: 1.1. The purpose and object of Maharashtra 
Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair 
Labour Practices Act, 1971 is to define and provide for 
MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. v. 
939 
CASTERIBE RAJYA P. KARMCHARI SANGHATANA 
). 
prevention of certain unfair labour practices as list'ed in A 
Schedule II, Ill and IV. MRTU and PULP Act empowers the 
Industrial and Labour Courts to decide that the person 
named in the complaint had engaged in or was engaged 
in unfair labour practice and if the unfair labour practice 
is proved, to declare that an unfair labour practice has 
8 
been engaged or is being engaged by that person and 
direct such person to cease and desist from such ~nfair 
~ 
labour practice and take such affirmative action (including 
payment of reasonable compensation to the employee or 
employees affected by the unfair labour practice, or c 
reinstatement of the employee or employees with or 
without back wages, or the payment of reasonable 
compensation), as may in the' op

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