Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Dattaprasad Narayan Kulkarni, was employed as a Technical Officer with M/s. Auchtel Products Ltd. (formerly Henkel Chemicals (I) Ltd.) since 1988. He was issued a charge-sheet on 06.07.2001 for repeatedly and unauthorizedly absenting himself from duty without intimation or leave from 09.05.2001 to 16.07.2001. The record showed that he had been habitually absent in previous years: 44.5 days in 1998, 63.5 days in 1999, and 144 days in 2000. The Respondent-Company terminated his services without holding a proper domestic inquiry. The Petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No.66 of 2001 before the Labour Court, Ratnagiri, under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act). The Labour Court, by judgment dated 30.04.2014, held that the Respondent-Company had committed an unfair labour practice and directed reinstatement of the Petitioner with a lumpsum compensation of Rs.60,000/- in lieu of back wages. Both parties filed Revision Applications under Section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act before the Industrial Court, Kolhapur. The Company sought to set aside the finding of unfair labour practice and the order of reinstatement and compensation, while the Petitioner sought reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. The Industrial Court, by common judgment dated 01.04.2017, allowed the Company's revision and dismissed the Petitioner's revision, thereby setting aside the Labour Court's order. Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. The High Court heard the matter and, after considering the submissions, held that the Industrial Court had erred in reversing the Labour Court's finding of unfair labour practice. The High Court noted that the termination was without a proper domestic inquiry, which constituted an unfair labour practice. However, given the Petitioner's habitual absenteeism, the High Court found that the Labour Court's award of Rs.60,000/- as lumpsum compensation in lieu of back wages was just and proper. The High Court set aside the Industrial Court's judgment and restored the Labour Court's order dated 30.04.2014, thereby allowing the Writ Petition in part.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Termination without proper inquiry - Section 44, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The Labour Court found that the Respondent-Company committed unfair labour practice by terminating the Petitioner without holding a proper domestic inquiry. The Industrial Court reversed this finding. The High Court held that the termination was indeed without a proper inquiry and thus an unfair labour practice, but the Petitioner's habitual absenteeism justified denial of back wages. (Paras 3-10) B) Industrial Law - Reinstatement - Compensation in lieu of back wages - Section 44, MRTU and PULP Act - The Labour Court ordered reinstatement with Rs.60,000/- lumpsum compensation in lieu of back wages. The Industrial Court set aside the reinstatement. The High Court restored the Labour Court's order, holding that reinstatement was appropriate given the lack of proper inquiry, but the compensation amount was adequate considering the Petitioner's absenteeism. (Paras 3-10) C) Industrial Law - Habitual Absenteeism - Charge-sheet - The Petitioner was charge-sheeted for habitual unauthorized absence from 1998 to 2001. The High Court noted that the Petitioner remained absent for 44.5 days in 1998, 63.5 days in 1999, and 144 days in 2000, which was a serious misconduct. However, the termination was still held to be an unfair labour practice due to lack of proper inquiry. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court erred in setting aside the Labour Court's finding of unfair labour practice and order of reinstatement with compensation, and whether the Petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition in part. It set aside the Industrial Court's common judgment dated 01.04.2017 and restored the Labour Court's judgment and order dated 30.04.2014, which directed reinstatement of the Petitioner with Rs.60,000/- as lumpsum compensation in lieu of back wages.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- habitual absenteeism
- charge-sheet
- domestic inquiry
- reinstatement
- back wages
- compensation in lieu of back wages
- Section 44 MRTU and PULP Act
- Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India
