Case Note & Summary
The case arose from termination of services of two workmen employed as security staff (watchman and havaldar) at the appellant's pharmaceutical factory at Thane, Bombay. On 7 August 1975, a temporary workman named Parkar was caught by security staff while attempting to steal company products and, during police investigation, allegedly disclosed the involvement of the two workmen in a conspiracy to commit theft. The workmen were arrested on 8 August 1975, and their statements were recorded on 9 and 10 August 1975. Stolen property, consisting of medicines manufactured by the appellant company, was recovered from their houses. On 14 August 1975, the appellant wrote to each workman that their absence from duty since their arrest without intimation or permission had led to loss of confidence, and their services were terminated in accordance with certified standing order No. 25(4). The workmen filed complaints under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, alleging unfair labour practice under Item 1(a) to (b) of Schedule IV. They later sought to amend the complaint to allege they had been falsely implicated due to union rivalry, but the Labour Court rejected the amendment on 10 January 1977. The Labour Court dismissed the complaints on 21 September 1978, but the Industrial Court remanded the matter on 21 July 1979, directing the Labour Court to consider the false implication allegation. Meanwhile, respondent 2 was acquitted in the criminal trial on 29 July 1978, while respondent 3 was convicted but later acquitted on appeal on 4 December 1979. After remand, the Labour Court, by order dated 28 December 1981, dismissed the complaints after considering evidence and concluding that the workmen had neither been falsely implicated nor victimized for trade union activities. The Industrial Court dismissed the revisions on 10 February 1984. The workmen then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court. By judgment dated 22/26 February 1990, the High Court quashed the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court, holding that the employer had indulged in unfair labour practice covered by Item 1(b) of Schedule IV because the termination was carried out with undue haste, and directed reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. The appellant challenged this decision by special leave before the Supreme Court. The provided judgment text ends before recording the Supreme Court's final decision or reasoning.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Item 1(b) of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Termination of services with undue haste - Two watch and ward staff members were arrested on suspicion of theft and their services terminated on ground of loss of confidence without holding any domestic enquiry; the Bombay High Court held that the action taken by the employer was with undue haste and therefore constituted unfair labour practice under Item 1(b) of Schedule IV; the Supreme Court's final view on this point is not available in the provided text. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Items 1(a) and (c) of Schedule IV and Items 4(a),(b) of Schedule II of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Allegations of false implication and victimization for trade union activities - The Labour Court and Industrial Court found that the workmen had not been falsely implicated in the criminal case and had not been victimized for trade union activities; the Bombay High Court did not disturb these findings but relied on the ground of undue haste; the Supreme Court's treatment of these findings is not recorded in the available text. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of Constitution of India - High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over lower courts/tribunals - The Bombay High Court set aside concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court and Industrial Court on the ground that termination was effected with undue haste; the question whether such interference was permissible under Article 227 is a key issue before the Supreme Court, but the final decision is not available in the provided text. (Paras Not mentioned) D) Labour Law - Retrenchment - Section 2(oo) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Termination for loss of confidence may amount to retrenchment if conditions precedent not fulfilled - The workmen had sought to amend their complaint to allege that termination amounted to retrenchment without compliance with statutory conditions, but the Labour Court rejected the amendment; the issue was raised but not decided by the High Court, and the Supreme Court's view is not available in the provided text. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether termination of services of two workmen by the appellant on ground of loss of confidence, after their arrest in a theft case and without holding a domestic enquiry, constituted unfair labour practice under Item 1(b) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971; Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact under Article 227 of the Constitution; Whether the workmen were entitled to reinstatement with back wages.
Final Decision
Not mentioned - provided text ends before final order.
Law Points
- Termination for loss of confidence without domestic enquiry may amount to unfair labour practice under Item 1(b) of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act
- 1971
- if action is taken with undue haste
- Discharge or punishment of an employee for trade union activity is unfair labour practice under Item 4(a) and (b) of Schedule II of the Act
- False implication in criminal case is unfair labour practice under Item 1(c) of Schedule IV of the Act
- Termination for loss of confidence may amount to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 if conditions precedent are not fulfilled
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors and patent illegality
- not reappraising evidence.
