Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC), challenged the judgment and order of the Industrial Court, Dhule, dated 24.08.2016, which quashed the punishment of reduction of basic pay by two stages imposed on the respondent, a conductor, for unauthorized absenteeism of 53 days. The respondent had been served a charge sheet on 27.08.2010, and after a disciplinary inquiry, the inquiry officer held the charge proved on 29.06.2011. The respondent was given a show-cause notice and after his reply, the punishment order was passed on 30.08.2011. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (ULP Act), alleging unfair labour practice under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV. The Industrial Court partly allowed the complaint on 12.08.2014, holding that the inquiry findings were perverse and the charges were not proved. MSRTC challenged this in Writ Petition No.5762/2015, which was partly allowed on 20.10.2015, with the observation that the Industrial Court should have first framed issues regarding natural justice and perversity. The matter was remanded back to the Industrial Court. On remand, the Industrial Court, by the impugned order dated 24.08.2016, again set aside the punishment, holding that the inquiry was fair and proper but the findings were perverse and the punishment was disproportionate. MSRTC then filed the present writ petition. The High Court held that the Industrial Court had the jurisdiction to reappreciate evidence and that its finding of perversity was based on evidence. The court also noted that the punishment of reduction of pay by two stages for 53 days' absence was disproportionate. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Disproportionate Punishment - Section 28, Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court, in a complaint under Section 28, can examine whether the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct, even if the inquiry is fair and proper. Held that the Industrial Court's finding of perversity in the inquiry report was based on evidence and not perverse, and the punishment of reduction of basic pay by two stages for 53 days' unauthorized absenteeism was disproportionate. (Paras 6-8)
B) Industrial Law - Reappreciation of Evidence - Power of Industrial Court - Section 28 of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court has the jurisdiction to reappreciate evidence in a complaint under Section 28 to determine if the findings of the inquiry officer are perverse or if the punishment is disproportionate. Held that the Industrial Court's order setting aside the punishment was within its jurisdiction and not liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court, while hearing a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, can reappreciate evidence and set aside punishment imposed in a disciplinary inquiry, even if the inquiry is held to be fair and proper?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order dated 24.08.2016 which quashed the punishment of reduction of basic pay by two stages imposed on the respondent.
Law Points
- Industrial Court can reappreciate evidence in complaint under Section 28 of MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- even if inquiry is fair and proper
- to determine if punishment is disproportionate
- Unfair labour practice under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971 includes disproportionate punishment
- Writ Court will not interfere with Industrial Court's finding of perversity if based on evidence
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (01) 12
Writ Petition No.7702 of 2017
Mr. D.S. Bagul for Petitioner, Mr. P.S. Paranjape for Respondent
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Dhule Division, Dhule, through its Divisional Controller
Anil S/o Narayan Sonawane
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Industrial Court setting aside punishment imposed in a disciplinary inquiry.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (MSRTC) sought to quash the Industrial Court's order dated 24.08.2016 which set aside the punishment of reduction of basic pay by two stages imposed on the respondent conductor.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the Industrial Court's order quashing the punishment imposed on the respondent for unauthorized absenteeism of 53 days.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court initially allowed the complaint on 12.08.2014, which was challenged in Writ Petition No.5762/2015. The High Court partly allowed that petition on 20.10.2015, remanding the matter to the Industrial Court to frame issues regarding natural justice and perversity. On remand, the Industrial Court again set aside the punishment on 24.08.2016.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court, while hearing a complaint under Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, can reappreciate evidence and set aside punishment imposed in a disciplinary inquiry, even if the inquiry is held to be fair and proper?
Whether the Industrial Court's finding that the inquiry findings were perverse and the punishment was disproportionate is sustainable?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Industrial Court erred in reappreciating evidence and setting aside the punishment when the inquiry was fair and proper.
Respondent supported the Industrial Court's order, contending that the findings were perverse and the punishment was disproportionate.
Ratio Decidendi
The Industrial Court, in a complaint under Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, has the jurisdiction to examine whether the findings of the inquiry officer are perverse and whether the punishment is disproportionate, even if the inquiry is fair and proper. The High Court will not interfere with such findings unless they are perverse or based on no evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner establishment is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Member of the Industrial Court, Dhule dated 24.08.2016 in the respondent’s Complaint ULP No.85/2012 by which the punishment imposed on him in a Disciplinary Inquiry dated 08.03.2011 is quashed and set aside.
The Industrial Court by the judgment and order dated 12.08.2014 allowed the complaint partly. It held that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer were perverse and the charges were not proved.
It was observed that the Industrial Court had erred in directly entertaining the complaint on merits in its entirety when it was obligatory on its part to, first of all, frame issues regarding observance of principles of natural justice and perversity of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer.
Procedural History
The respondent was issued a charge sheet on 27.08.2010 for unauthorized absenteeism of 53 days. After inquiry, the inquiry officer held the charge proved on 29.06.2011. The respondent was given a show-cause notice and after his reply, punishment of reduction of basic pay by two stages was imposed on 30.08.2011. The respondent filed Complaint ULP No.85/2012 under Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The Industrial Court partly allowed the complaint on 12.08.2014, holding the inquiry findings perverse. MSRTC challenged this in Writ Petition No.5762/2015, which was partly allowed on 20.10.2015, remanding the matter to the Industrial Court to frame issues. On remand, the Industrial Court again set aside the punishment on 24.08.2016. MSRTC then filed the present Writ Petition No.7702 of 2017, which was dismissed on 05.01.2022.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Section 28, Schedule IV Items 9 and 10
