Case Details: Managing Director vs. PM.T. Kamgar Sangh (INTUC) - [2026] 184 taxmann.com 648 (Bombay)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Amit Borkar, J.
-
Mrs A.P. Purav, Girish B. Badiger, A. S. Rao, Shivram A. Gawade, Deepak K. More, Rakesh R. Bhatkar, Mohan N. Devkule, Mohit Dalvi & Ms Sakshi Kamble for the Appearing Parties.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the petitioner-company, engaged in public transport, was formed upon the merger of Pune Municipal Transport (PMT) and Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Transport (PCMT), with employees absorbed with continuity of service.
In 1999, the respondent-union raised a charter of demands, and Clause 15 of the settlement dated 20-5-1999 recorded that the pension scheme may be extended to all PMT employees, subject to Government approval.
On failure to implement the said clause, the union filed a complaint alleging unfair labour practice. The Industrial Court allowed the complaint and directed implementation of the settlement.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the petitioner, being a successor-in-interest employer, was bound by Clause 15 of the settlement, and refusal to extend pensionary benefits amounted to unfair labour practice under Items 5 and 9.
Further, the Industrial Court’s direction to implement the settlement was within its jurisdiction. The petitioner was liable to implement Clause 15 and extend pensionary benefits, subject to statutory compliance.
The post Denial of Pension Settlement Is Unfair Labour Practice | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
