Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, challenged the judgment of the Industrial Court, Yavatmal, which held that the Corporation engaged in unfair labour practice by directing recovery of Rs.9,031/- from the salary of respondent No.1, a conductor. The conductor was on duty on 25th May 1992 on a bus from Yavatmal to Pandharkawada. Two parcels entrusted to him for delivery to Jalaram Krushi Kendra, Ghatanji were allegedly not delivered, causing loss to the Corporation. A charge sheet was issued on 1st March 1993, and after an enquiry, punishment of recovery in 36 monthly installments was imposed on 7th October 1995. The conductor filed a complaint before the Industrial Court, which allowed it. The Corporation argued that the Industrial Court decided the complaint without framing an issue on the fairness of the enquiry and without recording a finding. The conductor's counsel submitted that the issue was unnecessary because the Industrial Court concluded that the Corporation suppressed the best evidence and drew an adverse inference. The Industrial Court observed that one Shri Pande, examined in the enquiry, stated that he had taken a note in the control chart on 26th May 1992 after receiving the parcel, indicating receipt. The conductor's case was that he had delivered both parcels. The Industrial Court held that the Corporation, being in possession of the best evidence (the control chart note), suppressed it, warranting an adverse inference. The High Court found no perversity in the Industrial Court's approach and dismissed the petition, upholding the finding of unfair labour practice.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Recovery from Salary - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Item 1 of Schedule IV - The employer directed recovery of Rs.9,031/- from the conductor's salary for alleged loss of parcels. The Industrial Court held that the employer suppressed the best evidence (control chart note) and drew adverse inference, concluding unfair labour practice. The High Court upheld the decision, finding no perversity in the Industrial Court's approach. (Paras 1-5) B) Evidence - Adverse Inference - Suppression of Best Evidence - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114(g) - The employer failed to produce the control chart note which was in its possession and was the best evidence to show receipt of parcels. The Industrial Court drew adverse inference that the note would have supported the employee's case. The High Court affirmed that such inference was justified. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in holding that the Corporation engaged in unfair labour practice by directing recovery of Rs.9,031/- from the conductor's salary without proper evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's judgment that the Corporation engaged in unfair labour practice.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Adverse inference for suppression of evidence
- Recovery from salary without proper proof
- Industrial Court's jurisdiction under MRTU and PULP Act
