Municipal Mazdoor Union , Mumbai And Anr vs. The Municipal Corp. Of Greater Mumbai And Orss

Facts

The petitioners, Municipal Mazdoor Union Mumbai & Anr., challenged two interlocutory orders of the Industrial Court. These orders were passed on applications for interim relief concerning approximately 154 employees who were initially Clerks and later appointed as Inspectors on an ad-hoc basis in the Respondent Corporation's Assessment and Collection Department. Following the implementation of GST and the cessation of octroi collection, the Respondent Corporation decided to revert these Inspectors to their original posts as Clerks. The Petitioner union contended this reversion constituted an unfair labour practice. The Industrial Court, in its impugned orders dated 14 September 2017 and 5 October 2018, found that the appointments were explicitly ad-hoc and subject to repatriation, thus not constituting an unfair labour practice.

Held

The Court held that there was no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Industrial Court. The circular dated 22 July 2016, through which applications for the Inspector posts were invited, clearly indicated that the posts were ad-hoc and subject to repatriation. The Court found that the subsequent reversion of the employees could not be termed a breach of any agreement. The reasoning was that the terms of appointment themselves, as communicated through the circular and office orders, made it clear that the appointments were temporary and contingent upon the prevailing circumstances, particularly the impending changes due to GST and the potential abolition of octroi. Therefore, the Respondent Corporation's action was consistent with the agreed terms. The ratio decidendi is that where appointments are explicitly made on an ad-hoc basis and subject to repatriation, a subsequent reversion based on exigencies of service does not constitute an unfair labour practice. The Court dismissed the writ petition but clarified that the pending complaint before the Industrial Court would still address the specific nature of the reversion and its impact on service conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appointments of 154 employees as Inspectors were regular appointments or ad-hoc appointments subject to repatriation, as per Section 2(17) of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, and Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. 2. Whether the Respondent Corporation's decision to revert the Inspectors to their original posts of Clerks constituted an unfair labour practice under Item 5 or Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner union argued that the appointments of the 154 employees as Inspectors were regular appointments. They contended that applications were invited, written examinations were conducted, a merit list was prepared, and appointments were made to vacant posts, including those reserved for specific categories. They asserted that the Respondent Corporation's decision to revert these employees was a failure to implement an agreement and constituted an unfair labour practice. Respondent's Arguments: The Respondent Corporation argued that the appointments were clearly made on an ad-hoc basis, as indicated by a circular dated 22 July 2016 and the subsequent office orders. This circular explicitly stated that the appointments were subject to repatriation to original posts due to the potential abolition of octroi. They maintained that the employees were aware of these conditions when they applied and accepted the appointments.