Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Suresh Vasudeo Dalvi, was employed as a Clerk with Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, a Trust running an auditorium named 'Kalidas Natyagruha'. He was appointed on 11 April 1991, but his services were terminated on 21 September 1991 and he was reappointed on 10 October 1991. On 16 April 2000, one Smt. Sukhbir Kaur complained to the Mayor of MCGM alleging that the Petitioner demanded Rs.45,000/- for booking of the auditorium (Rs.15,000/- for license, Rs.15,000/- for lamp and light material, and Rs.15,000/- for other expenses). She later booked the auditorium without making such payments. The allegations were repeated in a meeting on 26 July 2000. The Petitioner was terminated on 28 February 2002. He filed Complaint (ULP) No. 206 of 2002 before the 4th Labour Court, Thane, which on 3 November 2009 directed his reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service w.e.f. 1 February 2002. Respondent No.1 filed Revision (ULP) No.11 of 2010 before the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, which on 19 January 2011 set aside the Labour Court's order and confirmed the termination. The Petitioner challenged the Industrial Court's order by way of a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court held that the Industrial Court's view was plausible and did not warrant interference. The Labour Court's finding of unfair labour practice was perverse and based on no evidence. The High Court dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Termination - Perverse Finding - The Industrial Court set aside the Labour Court's order of reinstatement with full backwages on the ground that the Labour Court's finding of unfair labour practice was perverse and based on no evidence. The High Court held that the Industrial Court's view was plausible and did not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 1-12)
B) Industrial Law - Termination - Misconduct - Demand of Illegal Gratification - The Petitioner, a Clerk, was terminated for demanding Rs.45,000/- for booking of auditorium. The Labour Court had held that the termination was illegal and amounted to unfair labour practice. The Industrial Court reversed this finding, holding that the Labour Court had ignored the evidence of the complainant and the management. The High Court upheld the Industrial Court's order. (Paras 2-10)
C) Industrial Law - Reinstatement - Backwages - The Labour Court had directed reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service. The Industrial Court set aside this order and confirmed the termination. The High Court upheld the Industrial Court's order, finding no perversity in the Industrial Court's appreciation of evidence. (Paras 1-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in reversing the Labour Court's order of reinstatement with full backwages on the ground that the Labour Court's finding of unfair labour practice was perverse and based on no evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order dated 19 January 2011 which set aside the Labour Court's order of reinstatement with full backwages and confirmed the termination of the Petitioner.
Law Points
- Unfair Labour Practice
- Termination
- Perverse Finding
- Reinstatement
- Backwages
- Burden of Proof
- Evidence Appreciation
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (02) 223
WRIT PETITION NO. 9442 OF 2011
Ms. Aditi Naikare for the Petitioner, Ms. A.P. Purav for the Respondent
1. Priyadarshini Indira Gandhi Kreeda Sankul, Mahkavi Kalidas Natyamandir, 2. Brihanmumbai Kreeda Ani Lalitkala Pratishthan, 3. Mr. Pratap G. Vedpathak, Managing Trustee, 4. Mr. Uday V. Deshpande, 5. The Complex Officer, Brihanmumbai Kreeda Ani Lalitkala Pratishthan, 6. The Industrial Court, Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Industrial Court setting aside the Labour Court's order of reinstatement with full backwages.
Remedy Sought
The Petitioner sought to quash and set aside the Industrial Court's order dated 19 January 2011 and restore the Labour Court's order dated 3 November 2009 directing reinstatement with full backwages.
Filing Reason
The Petitioner was terminated from service on 28 February 2002 for allegedly demanding illegal gratification for booking of auditorium. The Labour Court held the termination illegal and ordered reinstatement, but the Industrial Court reversed that order.
Previous Decisions
The Labour Court (4th Labour Court, Thane) on 3 November 2009 allowed Complaint (ULP) No. 206 of 2002 and directed reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service w.e.f. 1 February 2002. The Industrial Court (President, Industrial Court) on 19 January 2011 allowed Revision (ULP) No.11 of 2010 and set aside the Labour Court's order, confirming the termination.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in reversing the Labour Court's order of reinstatement with full backwages on the ground that the Labour Court's finding of unfair labour practice was perverse and based on no evidence.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Industrial Court's order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
The Petitioner argued that the Industrial Court erred in reversing the Labour Court's well-reasoned order and that the Labour Court had correctly appreciated the evidence.
The Respondents argued that the Labour Court's finding was perverse as it ignored the evidence of the complainant and the management, and the Industrial Court rightly set it aside.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that the Industrial Court's view that the Labour Court's finding of unfair labour practice was perverse and based on no evidence was a plausible view. The Labour Court had ignored the evidence of the complainant and the management, and the Industrial Court's appreciation of evidence did not suffer from any perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Judgment Excerpts
The Industrial Court has confirmed the termination order of the Petitioner dated 28 February 2002.
The Labour Court, by its Judgment and Order dated 3 November 2009 had directed Petitioner’s reinstatement with full backwages and continuity w.e.f 1 February 2002.
The Industrial Court has set aside the Labour Court's order on the ground that the finding of unfair labour practice is perverse and based on no evidence.
Procedural History
The Petitioner was terminated on 28 February 2002. He filed Complaint (ULP) No. 206 of 2002 before the 4th Labour Court, Thane, which on 3 November 2009 directed reinstatement with full backwages. Respondent No.1 filed Revision (ULP) No.11 of 2010 before the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, which on 19 January 2011 set aside the Labour Court's order and confirmed the termination. The Petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 29 February 2024.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act):
- Constitution of India: Article 227
