Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision application filed by Father Jerome Gonsalves, the original accused, challenging his conviction under Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act). The complainant, Nanasaheb Namdeo Gavahane, was a field assistant at a Social Centre trust run by the applicant. He was orally terminated from service on 31-03-1995. He challenged the termination before the Labour Court, which allowed his complaint on 02-01-2008, directing reinstatement with continuity of service and 25% back wages. Both parties filed revisions, and the Industrial Court confirmed the order. Despite the order, the complainant was not reinstated. Consequently, the complainant filed a criminal complaint under Section 48(1) of the MRTU and PULP Act. The Labour Court convicted the applicant on 24-09-2015, sentencing him to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 5000. The applicant appealed to the Industrial Court, which confirmed the conviction on 08-11-2019. The applicant then filed the present revision. The main legal issue was whether the conviction was sustainable, particularly regarding the applicant's liability as a director of the trust and whether mens rea was required. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 48(1) and held that the offence is one of strict liability, not requiring mens rea. The court also noted that the applicant was in charge of the trust and responsible for its affairs, making him vicariously liable. The court found no perversity in the concurrent findings of the courts below and dismissed the revision, upholding the conviction.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Section 48(1) MRTU and PULP Act - Non-compliance of reinstatement order - The applicant, a priest and director of a trust, was convicted for failing to reinstate the complainant despite a Labour Court order - The court held that mens rea is not an essential ingredient for an offence under Section 48(1) and that the applicant, being in charge of the trust, was liable for the non-compliance - The conviction was upheld (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the applicant under Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 for non-compliance of the reinstatement order is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The revision application is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the applicant under Section 48(1) of MRTU and PULP Act are upheld.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Non-compliance of reinstatement order
- Vicarious liability of employer
- Mens rea not essential
- Strict liability under Section 48(1) MRTU and PULP Act
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (10) 10
Criminal Revision No.85 of 2020
Mr. V. N. Upadhye (for applicant), Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar (APP for State), Mr. P. V. Barde (for respondent No.2)
Father Jerome Gonsalves S J
The State of Maharashtra and Nanasaheb Namdeo Gavahane
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision against conviction for unfair labour practice under Section 48(1) of MRTU and PULP Act.
Remedy Sought
The applicant sought to set aside his conviction and sentence imposed by the Labour Court and confirmed by the Industrial Court.
Filing Reason
The applicant was convicted for failing to comply with the Labour Court's order of reinstatement of the complainant with continuity of service and back wages.
Previous Decisions
The Labour Court allowed the complainant's complaint (ULP No.50 of 1996) on 02-01-2008 directing reinstatement with continuity and 25% back wages. Both parties filed revisions, and the Industrial Court confirmed the order. Subsequently, the Labour Court convicted the applicant under Section 48(1) on 24-09-2015, which was confirmed by the Industrial Court on 08-11-2019.
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 48(1) of MRTU and PULP Act is sustainable when the applicant was not the employer but a director of the trust?
Whether mens rea is an essential ingredient for an offence under Section 48(1) of MRTU and PULP Act?
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that he was not the employer and that the trust was the employer, and he cannot be held vicariously liable.
The applicant argued that there was no mens rea on his part and that the non-compliance was not intentional.
The respondent argued that the applicant was in charge of the trust and responsible for its affairs, and the offence under Section 48(1) does not require mens rea.
Ratio Decidendi
The offence under Section 48(1) of the MRTU and PULP Act is one of strict liability and does not require mens rea. The person in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the employer at the time of the offence is deemed to be guilty of the offence. The applicant, being the director and in charge of the trust, was liable for the non-compliance of the reinstatement order.
Judgment Excerpts
Present revision application has been filed by the original accused challenging his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 48 (1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971...
Procedural History
The complainant filed a complaint (ULP No.50 of 1996) before the Labour Court, which was allowed on 02-01-2008. Both parties filed revisions. The complainant then filed a criminal complaint under Section 48(1) of MRTU and PULP Act, which resulted in conviction on 24-09-2015. The applicant appealed to the Industrial Court, which confirmed the conviction on 08-11-2019. The applicant then filed the present criminal revision before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: 48(1)
