Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ petition filed by the employer (Superintending Engineer and others) challenging an order of the Industrial Court, Nagpur, which allowed a complaint of unfair labour practice filed by the respondent-workman, Harichand Punaji Raut. The workman was engaged as a labourer in 1982 but claimed he was allotted work as Mukadam. The employer's own proposal dated 28 January 1981 showed the workman's name at Sr. No. 35 as Mukadam, and the Government issued an order on 9 April 1992 bringing him on CRTE as Mukadam. However, on 11 March 1993, the employer passed an order reverting the workman from Mukadam to labourer, alleging that the designation was erroneously shown due to a mistake by a Head Clerk, who was subsequently punished in a disciplinary enquiry. Aggrieved, the workman filed a complaint before the Industrial Court, which allowed the complaint and declared the reversion as an unfair labour practice. The employer then filed the present writ petition. The High Court heard arguments from both sides. The employer's counsel argued that the designation was a mistake and the department should not suffer. The workman's counsel contended that the employer itself sent the proposal showing the workman as Mukadam, and the workman actually performed supervisory duties. The High Court noted that the Industrial Court had considered the evidence, including the testimony of the employer's witness Indalsingh Badgujar, and found that the workman was performing the duties of Mukadam. The High Court held that the Industrial Court's findings of fact were not perverse and that the employer could not take advantage of its own mistake. The court also observed that the workman was not given any opportunity of hearing before reversion. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Reversion - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Item 1 of Schedule IV - The employer reverted the workman from Mukadam to labourer on the ground that his designation was erroneously shown as Mukadam in the proposal sent by the employer itself. The Industrial Court held that the reversion was an unfair labour practice as the workman was not given any opportunity of hearing and the employer could not take advantage of its own mistake. The High Court upheld the Industrial Court's order, finding no perversity in the findings of fact. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the reversion of the respondent-workman from the post of Mukadam to labourer on 11.03.1993 constituted an unfair labour practice.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order that the reversion of the respondent-workman from Mukadam to labourer on 11.03.1993 constituted an unfair labour practice.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- reversion without opportunity of hearing
- employer cannot benefit from own mistake
- Industrial Court's findings of fact not to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction
