Discussing the precursor to the retrenchment of workmen without adherence to law, the Bombay High Court ruled that the Police Academy cannot recruit Selection Grade Staff for clearing the shortage of staff, and on the other continue exploiting the existing daily wage staff for years when they are all performing the same work.
Clarifying that the Maharashtra Police Academy is an “industry”, the Respondent is a “workman” within the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Court declared that the termination without notice and compensation was illegal and violative of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The Court therefore directed the Maharashtra Police Academy (Petitioner) to reinstate the Respondent in services as a High-Grade Stenographer within a period of two weeks from the date of this judgment and grant her continuity in service along with full advantages. The Court also directed for entitlement of the Respondent to the back wages / differential wages and all benefits and status of permanency.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav referred to Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act to state that, for avoiding any ambiguity and discrimination between permanent workmen and daily / wage workmen, the provision clearly lays down the condition that workmen in continuous service for not less than one year will be entitled to the benefit of this provision.
Since in the present case, the Respondent is admittedly in continuous service with the Maharashtra Police Academy for more than 8 years, and she has completed the requisite 240 days of continuous service, the Bench held her entitled to notice before retrenchment and compensation.
Briefly, in this case, the Maharashtra Police Academy appointed the respondent as a Computer Operator on a daily-wage basis in 2010 without any formal recruitment process. In the meantime, a Government Resolution dated February 05, 2016, granted limited autonomy to the Academy in matters of training, curriculum, and examination.
Later, the respondent’s services were terminated in 2018, without any notice, retrenchment compensation, or publication of a seniority list. Instead, the Academy retained a selection-grade staff. When the respondent filed a complaint before the Labour Court, alleging unfair labour practices and seeking reinstatement, the Labour Court ruled in her favour.
Appearances:
Advocates Avinash Jalisatgi, T.R. Yadav, and Mulanshu Vora, for the Petitioner
Advocates B.K. Barve, Sandeep Barve, Anushka Barve, and Simmy Sebatin, for the Respondent
