Case Note & Summary
The case involves two writ petitions filed by the Government of Maharashtra and its officers challenging concurrent judgments of the Labour Court and Industrial Court, Yavatmal. The respondents, Kasabai Chintaman Keram and Bhagirathabai Punjaji Madavi, were daily wager employees who were terminated from service on 30.06.1997. They filed complaints under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) alleging that their termination constituted unfair labour practice. The Labour Court allowed the complaints, holding that the respondents were appointed in 1987 and their termination without notice or hearing violated Schedule IV of the Act. The Labour Court granted reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. The petitioners filed revisions under Section 44 of the Act, which were dismissed by the Industrial Court on 30.10.2004. The High Court, in these writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227, noted that the orders of the Labour Court had already been implemented and the respondents reinstated. The court found no perversity or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings and dismissed the petitions, upholding the relief granted to the respondents.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Termination of Daily Wager - Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The Labour Court held that termination of the respondent from 30.06.1997 without notice or hearing constituted unfair labour practice under Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, and granted reinstatement with continuity and full back wages. The Industrial Court dismissed the revision under Section 44. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings, noting that the petitioners failed to show any perversity or jurisdictional error. (Paras 1-3)
B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India - The High Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the Labour Court and Industrial Court, as the petitioners did not demonstrate any error of law or perversity in the impugned orders. The court noted that the orders had already been implemented and the respondents reinstated. (Paras 1, 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of daily wager employees without following due process constitutes unfair labour practice under the MRTU & PULP Act, and whether the Labour Court and Industrial Court correctly granted reinstatement with full back wages.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the concurrent judgments of the Labour Court and Industrial Court granting reinstatement with continuity and full back wages to the respondents.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Termination of daily wager
- Reinstatement with back wages
- MRTU & PULP Act
- Schedule IV
- Section 44 revision
- Concurrent findings
- Articles 226 and 227
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 16
Writ Petition Nos. 3078 & 2942 of 2005
Shri Kothari and Shri Kale, learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Petitioners; Shri Rai, learned Counsel for Respondents
Government of Maharashtra, through Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Yavatmal and Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Works Sub Division No.1, Yavatmal
Kasabai Chintaman Keram and Bhagirathabai Punjaji Madavi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging concurrent judgments of Labour Court and Industrial Court granting reinstatement with back wages to daily wager employees.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (Government of Maharashtra and its officers) sought to quash the orders of Labour Court and Industrial Court granting reinstatement with continuity and full back wages to the respondents.
Filing Reason
The petitioners challenged the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and Industrial Court that the termination of the respondents constituted unfair labour practice under the MRTU & PULP Act.
Previous Decisions
Labour Court, Yavatmal allowed ULP Complaint No. 83/1997 and 84/1997 on 11.12.2003, granting reinstatement with continuity and full back wages. Industrial Court, Yavatmal dismissed Revision No. 4/2004 and other revision on 30.10.2004, upholding the Labour Court's order.
Issues
Whether the termination of daily wager employees without following due process constitutes unfair labour practice under Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act?
Whether the Labour Court and Industrial Court correctly granted reinstatement with full back wages?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the Labour Court and Industrial Court erred in granting reinstatement with full back wages.
Respondents contended that their termination was illegal and constituted unfair labour practice, and the concurrent findings should not be interfered with.
Ratio Decidendi
The termination of daily wager employees without notice or hearing constitutes unfair labour practice under Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, and the concurrent findings of fact by the Labour Court and Industrial Court, being not perverse or without jurisdiction, are not liable to be interfered with under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Judgment Excerpts
By these Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Government of Maharashtra and its officers are challenging the concurrent judgments delivered by the Labour Court, Yavatmal and Industrial Court, Yavatmal.
Labour Court granted a relief of reinstatement with continuity and full back wages to respondents and that has been maintained by the Industrial Court in Revisions.
This Court has issued Rule in the matter on 28.02.2006.
On 16.03.2006 this Court after noticing that the orders of Labour Court were already implemented and respective respondents have been already reinstated in service, rejected the prayers for interim relief.
Procedural History
The respondents filed ULP Complaints before the Labour Court, Yavatmal in 1997 challenging their termination. The Labour Court allowed the complaints on 11.12.2003. The petitioners filed Revisions under Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act before the Industrial Court, Yavatmal, which were dismissed on 30.10.2004. The petitioners then filed the present writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. Rule was issued on 28.02.2006, and interim relief was rejected on 16.03.2006 as the orders had been implemented. The High Court dismissed the petitions on 05.01.2010.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971: Schedule IV, Section 44
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
