#unfair labour practice

The Andhra Pradesh High Court directed regularisation of a daily wage employee with 30 years of service, waiving the statutory 5-year condition under the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointment to Public Services) Amendment Act, 1998. The ruling underscores that perennial work and decades of indispensable service override technicalities, reinforcing constitutional protections under Article 21. State governments must now justify denial of regularisation on stronger grounds.

Bombay High Court rules that reinstatement with partial back wages (30%) is justified unless the employer proves the employee was gainfully employed during suspension. The judgment underscores the burden of proof on employers in disproportionate punishment cases under labour law.

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 HC rules that compassionate appointment cannot be denied merely on the basis of an FIR, especially where allegations are against a third party and no arrest has occurred. The judgment reinforces natural justice principles, mandating that denial must be grounded in substantive evidence of misconduct, not procedural technicalities.

Bombay HC rules that reinstatement under the MRTU & PULP Act is not automatic even after proving unfair labour practice, especially after an 11-year delay and employer merger. The court upheld Rs. 2,00,000 compensation as a practical remedy for a peon with only 3 years of service, setting a precedent for balancing equities in long-pending labour disputes.

Bombay High Court rules that termination of a temporary employee after 15 years of service, based on unproven age ineligibility, constitutes unfair labour practice. The court mandates reinstatement with full back wages, reinforcing protections for long-term temporary workers under the Industrial Disputes Act.

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.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that a trade union’s right to recover amounts under Section 50 of the MRTU & PULP Act is contingent on explicit written authorization from each affected employee - regardless of prior settlement terms. This sets a critical precedent protecting individual worker autonomy against collective enforcement, impacting all unions seeking mandatory deductions under statutory awards.

The Bombay High Court upholds that employers may enforce pre-agreed transfer clauses in employment contracts even after reinstatement, provided no mala fide intent is proven. Personal hardship, however significant, cannot override the employer's legitimate managerial discretion under service law. This reinforces contractual certainty for employers across industries with mobility clauses.

Bombay HC rules that Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act does not apply to factories with fewer than 100 workers, even if closures involve voluntary resignations under settlements. The ruling clarifies that statutory protections for closure are inapplicable below the threshold, shielding employers from unfair labour practice claims.

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.