Bombay High Court Dismisses Employer's Petition Challenging Reinstatement Order in Unfair Labour Practice Case. Employer failed to prove voluntary resignation through E-portal; reinstatement with full back wages upheld under MRTU & PULP Act.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Petitioner, Reliance Integrated Services Pvt. Ltd., challenged the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court directing reinstatement of the Respondent, Satyananda Mohanty, with full back wages and continuity of service. The Respondent had joined the Petitioner-Company on 1 March 2006. The Petitioner claimed that the Respondent voluntarily resigned on 4 July 2014 by submitting a Separation Request through the E-portal and did not report for duties from 5 July 2014. The Petitioner paid the Respondent his legal dues including monthly wages and gratuity. The Respondent filed a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, seeking reinstatement. The Labour Court found that the Petitioner failed to prove that the resignation was voluntary, as the E-portal system was not authenticated and the Respondent denied submitting the request. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement with full back wages. The Industrial Court dismissed the Petitioner's revision application. The High Court upheld the findings, holding that the burden of proof was on the employer to establish voluntary resignation, which was not discharged. The Court also held that acceptance of dues does not amount to voluntary resignation. The petition was dismissed.

Headnote

A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Termination - Voluntary Resignation - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Section 28 - The employer alleged voluntary resignation through E-portal, but failed to produce authenticated evidence. The Labour Court and Industrial Court held that the resignation was not voluntary and reinstatement with full back wages was justified. (Paras 1-20)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the resignation of the Respondent was voluntary or whether the Petitioner-Company engaged in unfair labour practice by terminating his services without following due process.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court directing reinstatement of the Respondent with full back wages and continuity of service.

Law Points

  • Burden of proof on employer to establish voluntary resignation
  • Resignation through E-portal requires authentication
  • Acceptance of dues does not constitute voluntary resignation
  • Reinstatement with full back wages for illegal termination
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (BOM) (09) 116

WRIT PETITION NO. 5661 OF 2022

2023-09-01

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Mr. Tushad Kakalia i/by Hafeezur Rehman for Petitioner, Mr. Armaan Grewal i/by Mr. K.C. Prusty for Respondent/Applicant

Reliance Integrated Services Pvt. Ltd.

Mr. Satyananda Mohanty

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Challenge to orders of Labour Court and Industrial Court directing reinstatement of employee with full back wages.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought to quash the orders of Labour Court and Industrial Court directing reinstatement of Respondent.

Filing Reason

Petitioner claimed that Respondent voluntarily resigned, while Respondent alleged unfair labour practice.

Previous Decisions

Labour Court ordered reinstatement with full back wages on 3 January 2018; Industrial Court dismissed revision on 15 November 2019.

Issues

Whether the resignation of the Respondent was voluntary? Whether the Labour Court and Industrial Court erred in ordering reinstatement with full back wages?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that Respondent voluntarily resigned through E-portal and accepted all dues. Respondent argued that resignation was not voluntary and that he was forced to resign.

Ratio Decidendi

The employer failed to prove that the resignation was voluntary; the E-portal system was not authenticated and the employee denied submitting the request. Acceptance of dues does not amount to voluntary resignation. The burden of proof lies on the employer to establish voluntary resignation.

Judgment Excerpts

The Labour Court, by its Judgment and order dated 3 January 2018, has directed reinstatement of Respondent with full back wages and continuity of service with effect from 7 July 2014. It is Petitioner’s case that the Respondent voluntarily resigned from services of Petitioner-Company on 4 July 2014 by way of submitting Separation Request through E-portal.

Procedural History

Respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No.107 of 2014 before Labour Court, Thane on 7 July 2014. Labour Court allowed the complaint on 3 January 2018. Petitioner filed Revision Application (ULP) No. 25 of 2018 before Industrial Court, which was dismissed on 15 November 2019. Petitioner then filed Writ Petition No. 5661 of 2022 before the High Court, which was dismissed on 1 September 2023.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Section 28
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Acquittal of Seller and Manufacturer in Food Adulteration Case Due to Non-Compliance with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Failure to Send Sample to Director of Central Food Laboratory Renders Publ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Employer's Petition Challenging Reinstatement Order in Unfair Labour Practice Case. Employer failed to prove voluntary resignation through E-portal; reinstatement with full back wages upheld under MRTU & PULP Act.