Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, the Divisional Officer of the Maharashtra State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd., Nagpur, challenged the order of the Industrial Court, Nagpur, which allowed the complaint of respondent No.1, S.R. Kawishwar, alleging unfair labour practice. Respondent No.1 was appointed as a Clerk on 3rd January 1968 in Category 9 and promoted to Officer Grade III in Category 7 on 4th June 1971. On 23rd May 1983 and again on 13th May 1985, the employer promoted juniors of respondent No.1 to Category 6, bypassing his claim. Respondent No.1 filed Complaint ULP No.102 of 1985 under Item 5 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). During the pendency of the complaint, respondent No.1 was promoted to Category 6 on 7th March 1986. The Industrial Court held in favor of respondent No.1, finding that the employer had not tendered any evidence and there was no reason to disbelieve respondent No.1's case. The employer argued that respondent No.1 had not proved that the other respondents were junior to him, but the Industrial Court noted that the employer had admitted in its written statement that respondent No.1 was senior to those promoted. The employer also contended that non-communication of adverse remarks was immaterial and that respondent No.1 did not fulfill conditions for promotion. The High Court found that the employer failed to produce any evidence to justify bypassing respondent No.1, and the Industrial Court's finding of unfair labour practice was based on the employer's own admission. The petition was dismissed, upholding the Industrial Court's order.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Promotion - Item 5 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Employer bypassed senior employee for promotion to Category 6 while promoting juniors on 13.05.1985 - Employer admitted seniority but failed to produce evidence justifying bypassing - Non-communication of adverse remarks held immaterial as employer did not prove any valid reason - Held that Industrial Court correctly found unfair labour practice (Paras 1-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the employer's failure to promote a senior employee while promoting juniors, without communicating adverse remarks or producing evidence, constitutes unfair labour practice under Item 5 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order that the employer committed unfair labour practice by bypassing respondent No.1 for promotion.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Promotion
- Seniority
- Adverse remarks
- Non-communication
- Burden of proof
- Item 5 Schedule IV MRTU & PULP Act
