Bombay High Court: Long-Term Engagement of Daily Wage Watchmen Constitutes Unfair Labour Practice.

Headnote:

The Bombay High Court dismissed a batch of Letters Patent Appeals filed by the Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra, upholding concurrent findings of the Industrial Court and the Single Judge that prolonged engagement of watchmen on daily wages for several years, despite continuous service of more than 240 days each year and performance of permanent and perennial work, amounted to unfair labour practice under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The Court held that absence of sanctioned posts or implementation of government schemes cannot justify denial of permanency when the employer continues to extract perennial work.

Background:

• The respondents were appointed as watchmen by the Forest Development Corporation between 1977 and 1992 on a daily wage basis.

• They continued in uninterrupted service for 15–20 years, completing more than 240 days of work each year.

• Ninety-nine complaints were filed before the Industrial Court, Nashik under Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act, alleging unfair labour practices under Items 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV.

• The Industrial Court, by judgment dated 31 July 2000, held the Corporation guilty of unfair labour practices and directed grant of permanency with effect from 1 April 1998, along with consequential benefits.

• The Single Judge dismissed the Corporation’s writ petitions on 13 June 2001, leading to the present batch of Letters Patent Appeals.

Issues

• Whether prolonged engagement of daily wage watchmen for years together amounts to unfair labour practice.

• Whether absence of sanctioned posts or engagement under government schemes can defeat claims of permanency.

• Whether the Forest Development Corporation qualifies as an “industry” and the respondents as “workmen”.

Court’s Observations

• The Forest Development Corporation, though a government company, is an independent juristic entity and qualifies as an “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

• The respondents fall within the definition of “workmen” and had undisputedly completed 240 days of service year after year.

• The work of watchmen was permanent and perennial in nature, and continuously required by the Corporation.

• Keeping workers on daily wages for decades, despite continuous service, squarely attracts Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.

• Absence of sanctioned posts is not a valid defence where unfair labour practice is established and the Court exercises powers under Sections 30 and 32 of the MRTU & PULP Act.

• The Court rejected the plea of “backdoor entry”, relying on Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare and the recent Supreme Court decision in Jaggo v. Union of India (2024).

• Concurrent findings of fact by the Industrial Court and the Single Judge did not warrant interference in Letters Patent jurisdiction.

Decision

The Bombay High Court dismissed all the Letters Patent Appeals, affirming the directions granting permanency and consequential service benefits to the respondent watchmen.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Sections 28, 30 & 32, MRTU & PULP Act, 1971

• Items 6, 9 & 10, Schedule IV, MRTU & PULP Act

• Sections 2(j), 2(s) & 25B, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

• Article 226, Constitution of India