Case Note & Summary
The Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd (petitioner) challenged the judgment and order dated 19.04.2018 passed by the Industrial Court, Dhule in Revision Application (ULP) No.8 of 2017. The respondent, Dilip Choudhari, was dismissed from service after a domestic enquiry. The Labour Court, in Complaint (ULP) No.30 of 2010, passed Award-I on 01.07.2016 holding the enquiry fair and proper and findings not perverse. Subsequently, Award-II dated 16.02.2017 set aside the dismissal as shockingly disproportionate and directed payment of 50% back-wages. Both parties filed revisions: the respondent sought full back-wages and challenged the proof of charges, while the petitioner challenged the setting aside of dismissal. The Industrial Court allowed the respondent's revision, set aside Award-II to the extent of 50% back-wages, and granted full back-wages, while dismissing the petitioner's revision. The High Court upheld the Industrial Court's order, noting that the petitioner did not challenge the finding of disproportionate penalty and the Industrial Court's interference was justified. The petitions were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Disproportionate Penalty - Shockingly Disproportionate - Section 30 of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The Labour Court found the domestic enquiry fair and proper but held the penalty of dismissal shockingly disproportionate and granted 50% back-wages. The Industrial Court, in revision, set aside the Labour Court's order and granted full back-wages. The High Court upheld the Industrial Court's order, holding that the Labour Court's finding of disproportionate penalty was not challenged by the employer and the Industrial Court's interference was justified to correct the error regarding back-wages. (Paras 2-10)
B) Industrial Law - Back-Wages - Full Back-Wages - Section 30 of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court granted full back-wages to the respondent after setting aside the Labour Court's order granting 50% back-wages. The High Court affirmed, noting that the employer did not challenge the finding of disproportionate penalty and the Industrial Court's decision to grant full back-wages was proper in the circumstances. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court erred in setting aside the Labour Court's Award-II which had granted only 50% back-wages and in granting full back-wages to the respondent?
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Disproportionate penalty
- shockingly disproportionate
- back-wages
- MRTU & PULP Act
- Section 30
- Section 44
- domestic enquiry
- perversity
- reinstatement
- full back-wages
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (11) 14
WRIT PETITION NO.8738 OF 2018 and WRIT PETITION NO.8739 OF 2018
Mr. D.N. Suryawanshi for petitioners, Mr. Shrikant S. Patil for respondent
The Managing Director, The Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd, Mumbai and The Factory Manager, Vaibhav Pashu Khadya Karkhana Bor Vihir, Dhule
Dilip s/o. Manga Choudhari
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the judgment and order of the Industrial Court in a revision application under the MRTU & PULP Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the Industrial Court's order granting full back-wages to the respondent.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were aggrieved by the Industrial Court's order allowing the respondent's revision and granting full back-wages.
Previous Decisions
Labour Court passed Award-I on 01.07.2016 holding domestic enquiry fair and proper; Award-II on 16.02.2017 set aside dismissal as shockingly disproportionate and granted 50% back-wages. Industrial Court on 19.04.2018 allowed respondent's revision and granted full back-wages, dismissed petitioners' revision.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court erred in setting aside the Labour Court's Award-II which had granted only 50% back-wages and in granting full back-wages to the respondent?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the Industrial Court erred in granting full back-wages.
Respondent supported the Industrial Court's order.
Ratio Decidendi
The Industrial Court's order granting full back-wages was upheld as the employer did not challenge the Labour Court's finding of disproportionate penalty, and the Industrial Court's interference to correct the error regarding back-wages was justified.
Judgment Excerpts
The Labour Court later passed Award-II dated 16.02.2017 setting aside the dismissal order on the ground of the same being shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and directed payment of 50% back-wages.
By the judgment and order dated 19.04.2018, the Industrial Court was pleased to allow respondent’s Revision Application (ULP) No.15 of 2017 while dismissing petitioners’ Revision Application (ULP) No.8 of 2017.
Procedural History
Respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No.30 of 2010 before Labour Court, Dhule challenging dismissal. Labour Court passed Award-I on 01.07.2016 upholding enquiry, and Award-II on 16.02.2017 setting aside dismissal with 50% back-wages. Both parties filed revisions: respondent filed Revision Application (ULP) No.15 of 2017, petitioners filed Revision Application (ULP) No.8 of 2017. Industrial Court, Dhule allowed respondent's revision and dismissed petitioners' revision on 19.04.2018. Petitioners filed present writ petitions before High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act): Section 30
