Chapter: 2.4.9 Favoritism and Partiality in the M.R.T.U.P.U.L.P.

Favoritism and Partiality

• In the case,

Bharatiya Kamagar Sena
V
Consolidated Pnuematic Tool Co.
1990 I CLR 112 (Bom. HC).

• the Unfair Labour Practice being under item 5 of Sch. IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971..whether discrimination attracts item 5 of Sch. IV.
• At the outset it may be stated that this complaint does not come within the ambit of item 5 of the Schedule IV of Act.
• Look at Schedule IV shows that the general Unfair Labour Practices referred to in the said schedule are acts or the practices on part of labour referred to in the said schedule are acts or practices on part of the employers.
• Admittedly in the settlement with respondent no. 3, respondent no. 1 on 19-4-85 agreed that, the terms and conditions of payment in respect of workman employed in the company prior to 1-7-93 and after 1-7-93, is fixed in the settlement between the Company and recognized union.
• Under these circumstances by no stretch of imagination it can be s aid that this is an act of respondent no. 1 company as contemplated under schedule IV.
• The complaint filed by the petitioner is not maintainable.'

Casual Labour

• In the case,

State of Maharashtra
V_
Parvatibai Salvi,
1991 II CLR 474 (Born. HC)

• The contention... respondents were not workmen.. rejected observing ..casual workman ..not cease to be workman.
• The nature of work carried on by them was permanent although they were working on daily wage basis.
• Direction given to make them permanent.
• The Court observed that, 'the Petitioner engaged the first respondent as labourers for various operations connected with fruit nursery activity of the petitioners for 8 years.
• The nature of the work carried on by the 'first respondent was. permanent, although they were-working on daily wage basis.
• The argument that the Industries Court had no Jurisdiction complaints as the first respondents were not rejected, in as much as it was the contention were casual workman and it is important that a casual workman does not case to be a workman.