• Unfair Labour Practices

• Section 2(r a) “Unfair labour practice” means

any of the practices specified in the Fifth
Schedule
• (Ins. By Act 46 of 1942 (w.e.f. 21-8-1984)
 On the part of employers and trade unions of
employers

• 1. To interfere with, restrain from, or coerce, workmen

in the exercise of their right to organize, form, join or
assist a trade union or to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, that is to say :-
•  (a) Threatening workmen with discharge or dismissal,
if they join a trade union;
•  (b) Threatening a lock-out or closure, if a trade union
is organised;
 
• (c) Granting wage increase to workmen at
crucial periods of trade union Organisations,
with a view to undermining the efforts of the
trade union Organisations.
• 2. To dominate, interfere with or contribute support,
financial or otherwise, to any trade union, that is to
say :-
•  (a) An employer taking an active interest in
organising a trade union of his workmen; and
•  (b) An employer showing partiality or granting favour
to one of several trade unions attempting to organise
his workmen or to its members, where such a trade
union is not a recognised trade union.
 
• 3. To establish employer sponsored trade unions
of workmen.
 
• 4. To encourage or discourage membership in
any trade union by discriminating against any
workman, that is to say :-
•  (a) Discharging or punishing a workman,
because he urged other workmen to join or
organize a trade union;
• (b) Discharging or dismissing a workman for
taking part in any strike (not being a strike
which is deemed to be an illegal strike under
this Act);

• (c) Changing seniority rating of workmen

because of trade union activities;
 
• To discharge or dismiss workmen-
•  (a) By way of victimisation;
•  (b) Not in good faith, but in the colourable
exercise of the employer’s rights;
•  (c) By falsely implicating a workman in a criminal
case on false evidence or on concocted evidence;
•  (d) For patently false reasons;
•  (e) On untrue or trumped up allegations of
absence without leave;
I.-On the part of employers and trade unions of employers

• 1. To interfere with, restrain from, or coerce, workmen in the

exercise of their right to organise, from, join or assist a trade
union or to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining or…….

• . Failure to implement award, settlement or agreement.

• . To refuse to bargain collectively, in good faith with the

recognized trade unions.
II.-On the part of workmen and trade unions of
workmen

• . For a recognized union to refuse to bargain

collectively in good faith with the employer.

• . To indulge in coercive activities against

certification of a bargaining representative
 Unfair Labour Practices on the Part of Employers Section 28(k)

A. to interfere with, restrain, or coerce his workmen in the exercise of

their rights to organize, form, join or assist a Trade Union and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or
protection;
B. to interfere with the formation or administration of any Trade Union
C. to discharge, or otherwise discriminate against any officer of a
recognized Trade Union because of his being such officer;
D. to discharge, or otherwise discriminate against any workman because
he has made allegations or given evidence in any inquiry or
proceeding relating to any matter .
 Unfair Labour Practices on the Part of Trade Unions
Section 28(k)

A. for a majority of the members of the Trade Union to take

part in an irregular strike;

B. for the executive of the Trade Union to advise or actively

to support or to instigate an irregular strike;

C. for an officer of the Trade Union to submit any return

required by or under this Act containing false statements.
 The Code of Discipline, 1958

Unfair Labour Practice on part of

employer
A. interference with the rights of employees to enroll
or continue as union members;
B. discrimination, restraint or coercion against any
employee because of recognized activity of trade
unions; and
C. victimization of any employee and abuse of
authority in any form.
 First National Commission on Labour

• Recommended that law should enumerate

various unfair labour practices
• Suitable penalties, including de-recognition of
unions and heavy fine in case of an employer,
for committing such practices .
• Complaints will be dealt by the Labour
Courts.
 A. Narrow View

• Early adjudicators confined the expression

“ULP” to trade union activity.
• “ No trade union activity, no unfair labour
practice.”
• This view supported by Section 28K of Trade
Unions (Amendment) Act, 1947.
• Later decision makers refused to accept the
narrow interpretation on at least two grounds:-
First, if unfair labour practice is confined merely
to trade union activities, then the worker who
is not the member of any union and as such,
having no trade union activities will not be
entitled to any relief under the IDA, 1947
when they are discharged.
• Second, it limits the scope of Tribunal’s
jurisdiction to intervene only in cases where
the management has dismissed or discharged
workmen for the trade union activities.
• Extensive View
• A few of earlier decisions and later decisions
generally emphasize extensive view.
Alexandre Jute Mills Ltd. V. Their Workmen (1950)
ILLJ 1261

• ‘any order made in bad faith with an ulterior

motive arbitrarily or with harshness is an instance
of unfair labour practice.’
• Regional Manager, SBI v. Raja Ram (2005)ILLJ 12

• When an employee is appointed temporarily for

successive fixed tenures with artificial breaks in
between so as to deny the employee the right to
claim permanent appointment such action would be
an unfair labour practice within the meaning of the
phrase in Section2(ra) of the Act.
• Discouragement of Badli workmen to join
Trade Union- an unfair labour practice
 What amounts to unfair practice-
• The Company has a factory at Akurdi, Pune,
where it manufactures three wheelers and two
wheelers. Prior to or about August 1984, the
Company did not have the practice of hiring
temporary employees in its Akurdi Plant.
• Employees were hired as probationers, but were
given breaks in service after successive periods of
probation and after several such breaks they were
ultimately confirmed as permanent employees.
• In or about the year 1981, there were about 8000
permanent workmen in the Akurdi Plant of the
Company. From August 1984, the Company
discontinued the system of appointing workmen on
probation. All employment thereafter was done on
temporary basis for fixed periods of seven months
followed by a break of varying period in each case.
As a result of these breaks, no temporary employee
would complete 240 days' service in any period of
twelve months.
 Latest Trend-

• Unfair labour practice charge cannot be taken

on face value:SC
• Thursday, October 27, 2011, 
• "Unfair labour practices"alleged by workers
cannot be routinely taken on face value, the
Supreme Court has ruled, stating that they
must be interpreted in the context of
globalisation and modern industrialisation.
• A bench of justices D K Jain and A K Ganguly, in a
judgement, said the argument of unfair practices
can be accepted only if there is"arbitrariness and
unreasonableness"in the management's action
violating Article 14 (equality) of the Constitution.
• The court said,"It is also to be kept in mind that
in the changed economic scenario, the concept
of unfair labour practice is also required to be
understood in the changed context."
• It was the case of the workmen under the
Siemens Employees Union that the
promotional scheme amounted to unfair
labour practices as defined under Section 9A
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and
sections 9 and 10 of the Maharashtra
Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention
of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
• In the present scenario of increasing demand
for labour flexibility by employers, some
practices are followed that would legally
amount to unfair labour practices (ULPs).
• The Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has provided
against ULPs by employers, workmen and
unions.
 State Laws-
• Another important state law protecting
against ULPs is the Maharashtra Recognition
of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair
Labour Practices Act 1971 (MRTU & PULP
Act).
• It provides important legal safeguards for
workers against victimisation and persecution
at the hands of their employers.
• CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH LED TO PASSING OF THE
MRTU & PULP ACT.-
• Independent and responsible unions and an orderly,
rational environment free from unfair labour
practices are the two pre-requisites of effective
collective bargaining. There was no effective
legislation providing for recognition of
representative trade unions as exclusive bargaining
agent except the Bombay Industrial Relations Act,
1946, which applied only to a few industries. 
• There was also no systematic law to determine and
penalise unfair labour practices.
• The Government of Maharashtra therefore in February
1968 appointed a Tripartite Committee under the
Chairmanship of the President, Industrial Court,
Bombay, for defining the activities on the part of the
employers and workers and their organisations which
should be treated as unfair labour practice and for
suggesting action which should be taken against
employers for engaging in such unfair labour practices. 
• The Committee after detailed deliberations
submitted an unanimous report to the State
Government.
• In  United States of America after great
economic depression of nineteen thirties, the
need for specific legislative protection was felt
and this need was translated into definite and
clear-cut legislative provisions.
• The provisions intended to remove the hurdles
in the way of collective bargaining were
summed up in the phrase "unfair labour
practices". 
• Unfair Labour Practices were spot-lighted and the
United States Congress proceeded to pass a
comprehensive enactment known as National Labour
Relations Act, 1935, which is popularly known as "the
Wagner Act".
• Subsequently the Congress passed a legislation
known as "Labour Management Relations Act, 1947“.
• This legislation made detailed provisions listing the
unfair labour practices. 
• Since Independence the Government of India
is playing an important role in the shaping of
industrial relations in the country.
• Though several legislations dealing with the
Industrial disputes were enacted, these
legislations did not deal with the issue of
unfair labour practice.
• Certain general principles of discipline in the
industry were agreed upon by the participants
at the 15th Indian Labour Conference and a
Tripartite Sub-committee was created to study
additional questions and develop the materials
in the form of a Code.
• This effort also did not succeed because the
Code was merely based on moral sanctions
and lacked legislative teeth.
• The Committee noticed that in India the
system of designating a representative union
as a sole bargaining agent has not been legally
accepted, existing in some State legislations,
notably the Bombay Industrial Relations Act.
• The expression 'unfair labour practice' has not
been used in this country to mean certain
activities connected with collective bargaining.
• The expression is loosely used in decisions of
the Industrial Tribunals, Labour Appellate
Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court,
and refers to unjust, dismissals unmerited
promotions, partiality towards one' set of
workers and every form of victimization. 
• The Committee defined which activities on
the part of the employers and the workers
and their organisations should be treated as
unfair labour practice by furnishing separate
lists.
• The Committee was conscious 'that it is
difficult to define the expression unfair labour
practice' and the list could not be exhaustive.  
• The law relating to unfair labour practice in
India as gathered from the decisions of the
Tribunals and Courts, indicates that it has
grown out of the exigencies of the situation
and circumstances in specific cases. 
• The Committee felt that to systematise the law
relating to unfair labour practice is necessary in the
context of the conditions prevailing in this country.
Though the expression 'unfair labour practice'
could not be defined with logical precision for the
simple reason that it covers a large category of
cases under its umbrella, the Committee felt that a
workable description of the expression is necessary
• The Government of Maharashtra after taking into
consideration the report of the Committee decided
to provide for the recognition of trade unions for
facilitating collective bargaining for certain
undertakings and to provide for prevention for
certain unfair labour practices. The Government also
considered it necessary to constitute an independent
machinery For fulfilling the dual purpose of according
recognition to unions and of enforcing provisions
relating to the unfair labour practices. 
• Accordingly, the State Legislature passed an
Act which came into force from February 1,
1972
 FEATURES OF THE ACT 
• (MRTU & PULP Act) is applicable to every
industry to which the Bombay Industrial
Relations Act and the Industrial Disputes Act
(in which the state government is the
appropriate government) are applicable.
• It covers every person defined as an
“employee” under the Bombay Industrial
Relations Act and as worker under the
Industrial Disputes Act.
 It seeks to: 
• provide for recognition of trade unions which will
facilitate collective bargaining; 
• formalize rights and obligations of unions; confer
powers on unrecognized unions; 
• regulate strikes and lockouts by defining the illegality
they involve; 
• list unfair labour practices and provide for prevention
of these; 
• constitute relevant labour judiciary institutions to deal
with matters arising out of the provisions of the Act. 
 THE PREAMBLE TO THE ACT
• The Preamble to the Act sets out that the legislation
was passed to provide for the recognition of trade
unions for facilitating collective bargaining and to
define and provide for the prevention of certain
unfair labour practices.
• The preamble further sets out that the legislation is
also to provide for Constitution of Courts as
independent machinery for enforcing the provisions
relating to unfair practice and to provide matters
connected with the purposes aforesaid. 
 CONCEPT OF UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICE

• Section 3(16) of the Act prescribes that 'unfair labour

practices' means unfair labour practices as defined in
Section 26.
• Section 26 provides that 'unfair labour practices'
mean any of the practices listed in Schedules II, III
and IV of the Act.
• Schedule II sets out unfair labour practices on the
part of the employers and various items under this
Schedule have reference to practices which have
relation to the Union activities.
• Schedule III deals with unfair labour practice
on the part of the trade unions
• Schedule IV sets out general unfair labour
practices on the part of employers. 
 Schedule IV
• 1. To discharge or dismiss employees- (a) by way of
victimisation;
• (b) by falsely implicating an employee in a criminal
case on false evidence or on concocted evidence;
• (c) for patently false reasons;
• (d) on untrue or trumped up allegations of absence
without leave;
• (e) in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice
in the conduct of domestic enquiry or with undue
haste.
• (f) for misconduct of a minor or technical
character, without having any regard to the
nature of the particular misconduct or the
past record of service of the employee, so as
to amount to a shockingly disproportionate
punishment".
• The Legislature was conscious that the unfair
labour practice set out in Schedules II, III and
IV may not be an exhaustive list and from
time to time a person may resort to practices
which are unfair labour practices and
therefore conferred power upon the State
Government to add or alter the items in the
Schedule after obtaining the opinion of the
Industrial Court.
• Regulation 147 framed by the Industrial Court in
exercise of powers conferred under Section 33 of the
Act requires the Members of Industrial Court to
submit a report upon any unscheduled unfair labour
practice which comes to the notice of the President
of the Industrial Court to the State Government and
on receipt of such report the State Government is
entitled to take action under Section 53 of the Act.
• Section 27 of the Act - no employer or union and no
employees shall engage in any unfair labour practice. 
• PROCEDURE FOR REDRESSAL OF COMPLAINT RELATING
TO UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICE UNDER MRTU & PULP Act-
• 1) In case any person has engaged in or is engaging in any
unfair labour practice, filing of complaint by any union or
any employee or any employer or any Investigating
Officer within ninety days of the occurrence of such
unfair labour practice, before the Court competent to
deal with such complaint either under section 5, or as the
as the case may be, under section 7, of this Act :
• Proviso stated that, if good and sufficient
reasons are shown by the complainant for the
late filing of the complaint i.e after the period
of ninety days from the date of the alleged
occurrence the Court may entertain a
complaint. 
• (2) The decision shall be given by Court on every such
complaint as far as possible within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of the complaint.
(3) On receipt of a complaint under sub-section (1),
the Court may, if it so considers necessary, first cause
an investigation into the said complaint to be made
by the Investigating Officer, and direct that a report in
the matter may be submitted by him to the Court,
within the period specified in the direction.
• (4) The Investigating Officer may visit the
undertaking, where the practice alleged is
said to have occurred, and make such
enquiries as he considers necessary. He may
also make efforts to promote settlement of
the complaint While investigating into any
such complaint.
• (5) The Investigating Officer shall, after investigating
into the complaint under sub-section (4) submit his
report to the Court, within the time specified by it,
setting out the full facts and circumstances of the
case, and the efforts made by him in settling the
complaint. The Court shall, on demand and on
payment of such fee as may be prescribed by rules,
supply a copy of the report to the complainant and
the person complained against. 
• (6) If, on receipt of the report of the
Investigating Officer, the Court finds that the
complaint has not been settled satisfactorily,
and that facts and circumstances of the case
require, that the matter should be further
considered by it, the Court shall proceed to
consider it, and give its decision. 
• (7) The decision of the Court, which shall be in writing,
shall be in the form of an order.The order of the Court
shall be final and shall not be called in question in any
civil or criminal court. 
(8) The Court shall cause its order to be published in
such manner as may be prescribed. The order of the
Court shall become enforceable from the date specified
in the order. (9) The Court shall forward a copy of its
order to the State Government and such officers of the
State Government as may be prescribed.” 
• Where any person has engaged in or is
engaging in any unfair labour practice, then
any union or any employee or any employer
may file a complaint before the Court
competent to deal with such complaint,
Section 5 of the Act prescribes that the
Industrial Court shall decide the complaints
relating to unfair labour practices except the
practices falling in Item 1 of Schedule IV.
• The practices falling under Item 1 of Schedule
IV are dealt with by the Labour Court in
accordance with provisions of Section 7 of the
Act.
• POWERS OF INDUSTRIAL AND LABOUR
COURTS -Section 30 of the Act sets out the
powers of Industrial and Labour Courts.
• Section 30 confers power upon the Court to pass
interim order, including a temporary relief or
restraining order as it deems just and proper,
including directions to withdraw temporarily the
practice complained of pending final decision.
• The failure to comply with the order of the Court is
made punishable by conviction with imprisonment
which may extend to three months or with fine
which may extend to Rs. 5000/- by provisions of
Section 48 of the Act.
• The MRTU & PULP Act forbids both employers and
workers from committing unfair labour practices
which are illustratively described in the schedules
appended to the Act.
• The Court will adjudicate on the complaint of such
practices within six months from the date of receipt
of the complaint. The Act prohibits the employer from
interfering with the union organizational activities in
any manner and victimizing anybody for legitimate
union activities, including participating in legal strikes. 
• Schedule IV protects the workers from mala
fide actions and victimization by employers
such as dismissal, punitive transfers etc. Thus,
the law provides both positive and negative
rights to both employers and workers to
conduct collective bargaining.
 SOME CASE LAWS
•   In a Bombay High Court in the Murlidhar s/o Atmaram
Wani vs Dharangaon Nagarpalika (2008(1) CLR 825) case,
• The Hon'ble Court held that a litigant should be given
an opportunity to prosecute for its remedy on merits
rather than rejecting his claims on mere technicalities. In
this case, the petitioner was working for the municipal
council as a driver on daily wages. He filed a complaint
under MRTU & PULP Act 1971, claiming various service
benefits including permanency.
• The Industrial Court had allowed the permanency
benefit to the petitioner, awarded payment of
relevant wage rates with retrospective effect and
directed the council accordingly. When the council
did not comply with the direction of the Industrial
Court to grant permanent status to the petitioner
and subsequently failed to pay pensionary and
other retirement benefits upon his superannuation,
the petitioner filed complaints under MRTU & PULP
Act. 
• The respondents objected to the complaints on
the ground of undue delay without justification.
The petitioner replied that the Chief Officer of the
council had already paid some part of the benefit
by installments and, therefore, he had reason to
believe that the rest will also be paid to him.
• He cited the verbal assurances of the Chief Officer
of the council that he would be paid his dues, in
due course.
 The High Court observed-
• The delay in filing complaints was not on
account of either negligence or callousness of
the petitioner. The Court further observed
that petitioner being a class IV employee
belongs to that stratum of the society which
cannot be expected to challenge the authority
of his employer, more so after being given a
verbal assurance by a high ranking official of
the employer.
• A litigant should be given an opportunity to
prosecute its remedy on merits because it advances
the substantial cause of justice.
• Delay in the present case has been caused not by
the fault of the party but by the circumstances of
the case. Therefore, it has to be condoned, and the
complaints filed by the petitioner for the ULPs of
not granting retirement and pensionary benefits as
well as permanent status would have to be decided
on merits and in accordance with law. 
• Ratnagar Ramchandra Patil vs Municipal
Corporation of Greater Bombay (2008 (1) CLR
923), before the same High Court, a similar
judgment was given on 25 February 2008. The
Justice BH Marlapalle held that refusing
promotion from class IV to class III posts
amounts to ULP if the rules of the
organisation contain provision for such
promotions.
• The High Court held that it is well settled that
to be considered for promotion is a legal right
and if the same is infringed due to the
inaction or wrong action of the employer, the
employees have a right to seek redressal
before the appropriate judicial forum. 
• Raymond Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Tukaram Tanaji
Mandhare and Anr. - Mar 9 2011
• Issue before court is Maharashtra Recognition
of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair
Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Sections 3(5) and
28; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Bombay
Industrial Relations Act, 1946 - Section 3(13)
and 3(14) 
• This appeal was filed against the impugned
judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay. Petitioners filed complaints
under Section 28 read with items 1 (a)(b), (d) and
(f) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition
of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour
Practices Act, 1971 before the Industrial
Court/Labour Court for certain reliefs claiming that
they were employees of the Respondent company.
• The Respondent company in all those writ petitions
, disputed the status of the employees and had
contended in its written statement that there was
no relationship of employer - employee with any of
the Petitioners.
• The company had contended that the complainants
were employed through the contractors and that
the issue regarding maintainability of the
complaints would have to be decided by the court. 
 ID Act- and MRTU& PULP - Compared

• The conciliation and referral processes under the

Industrial Disputes Act are lengthy, bureaucratic and
even political.In contrast, under the MRTU & PULP Act,
the parties to a dispute can directly approach the
labour judiciary and seek legal redress. Both the parties
could get injunctions against the actions of the other;
thus, no party could do anything without the due
process of law be completed. Thus, it provides easy
avenues for both, especially workers, to approach the
court to prevent or challenge arbitrary actions.
• The MRTU & PULP Act is lauded for several
reasons. It provides for the recognition of trade
unions at the enterprise level, something that
is missing in most other states and even at the
Central level.
• By ensuring ‘one union one enterprise’, it
helps tackle the problem of multiple unions,
the most irritating feature of unionism in
India. 
• The Srinivasan Committee (2002) found two
disturbing consequences of the Act.
• Firstly, a large number of unions did not seek
recognition under the Act. The Committee
found that as of 31 December 2001, only
1,445 applicant unions out of 3,302 were
granted recognition under the Act.
• Secondly, the law failed to check unfair labour
practices. Both employers and unions are guilty of
approaching the court frequently and, as a result,
the pendency of cases relating to unfair labour
practices increased in all types of cases. The
important cause for litigation by workers relates to
unfair discharge by employers (an unfair labour
practice under Schedule IV of the MRTP & PULP
Act). 
• The main reason for high pendency was the long time
taken to dispose of cases, which in turn, was due to
(a) time consuming procedures adopted to decide on
the disputes,
• (b) frequent and long adjournments sought by the
parties, and
• (c) reluctance of the parties to comply with the
procedural requirements of the Act.
• Litigation and the delay in disposal of cases cannot
promote industrial harmony.