#MRTU and PULP Act

Bombay High Court sets aside an Industrial Court order granting pay parity, ruling that equal pay for equal work under the MRTU & PULP Act mandates strict proof of identical posts, qualifications, and appointment status. The judgment reinforces that mere allegations of unfair labour practices are insufficient without substantive evidence of parity.

Bombay High Court quashed the compulsory retirement of a municipal employee, ruling that her recent promotion undermined allegations of inefficiency unless supported by new, substantive evidence. The judgment reinforces that compulsory retirement under the MRTU & PULP Act cannot be arbitrary and must align with principles of natural justice and public interest.

Bombay High Court rules that a 16-year delay in filing a revision petition under the MRTU and PULP Act is fatal, even in the absence of statutory limitation. The court also clarifies that criminal liability cannot be imposed on former directors without specific pleadings of personal involvement, reinforcing the principle that delay and laches bar equitable relief.

Bombay HC rules that a recognised union’s right to deduct 5% of wage arrears as union fund under a statutory settlement is enforceable across the entire workforce, even if only 36% of employees are members. The court holds that non-financial clauses in settlements under the MRTU & PULP Act cannot be vetoed by the State without explicit statutory authority, reinforcing industrial jurisprudence on collective bargaining.

Bombay HC reinforces that public employers cannot evade wage obligations under the MRTU & PULP Act by assigning higher duties without formal promotion. Employees performing such duties for prolonged periods are entitled to corresponding pay and benefits, irrespective of promotion status.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that credited salary amounts matched by corresponding bank withdrawals constitute legally sufficient proof of wage payment, overturning the Industrial Court’s assumption of paper transactions. This sets a critical precedent for employers facing unfair labour practice claims, shifting the burden to employees to prove non-receipt despite verifiable bank activity.

Bombay High Court rules that employers committing unfair labour practices by withholding work without valid cause must compensate employees with full wages, reinforcing worker protections under the MRTU & PULP Act. The judgment underscores that wage entitlement persists even when employees are ready and willing to work, holding employers strictly liable for arbitrary work denial.

Bombay HC rules that 13 years of continuous service in core manufacturing roles entitles casual workers to permanency under the MRTU & PULP Act, rejecting employer's reliance on artificial breaks. However, relief for terminated workers was quashed due to jurisdictional limits of the Industrial Court.

Bombay High Court rules that transferring employees without contractual or statutory basis, altering duties, and in the face of prior litigation violates Item 3 of the MRTU & PULP Act. The judgment reinforces protections for workers against arbitrary employer actions affecting service conditions.

Bombay High Court rules that filing an unfair labour practice complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act precludes a subsequent review application under Section 25-N(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, reinforcing legislative intent to avoid overlapping proceedings. The decision impacts workmen seeking redressal for retrenchment disputes, limiting their legal remedies.

Bombay High Court holds that reinstatement is unenforceable if employer has closed and employee deceased; back wages remain recoverable as monetary compensation.

Bombay High Court holds that industrial settlements are binding unless fraud, coercion, or statutory violation is proved with specificity. Key precedent: Herbertsons Ltd.