Case Note & Summary
These two Letters Patent Appeals, filed by the workman Sharad Dinkar Pachkhede, arose from two separate writ petitions which in turn originated from two complaints of unfair labour practice filed before the Labour Court at Chandrapur. The common respondent was the Ground Water Survey & Development Agency, a State instrumentality. The first complaint (ULP No. 514 of 1990) related to the termination of the workman’s services on 21 March 1990. The workman contended that he had been appointed as a Typist-cum-Clerk in October 1981, his services were terminated without any notice or retrenchment compensation, and the action constituted an unfair labour practice under Item 1(b) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, read with Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and Rules 80 and 81 of the Bombay Industrial Disputes Rules, 1947. The employer resisted the complaint by stating that the workman was a daily-wage skilled worker, no sanctioned post of Typist-cum-Clerk existed, the work was no longer available, and the offer of retrenchment compensation was refused by the workman. The Labour Court, by judgment dated 23 January 2001, recorded a finding that the termination did not amount to retrenchment as the workman was not on a sanctioned post, and even though there was non-compliance of Section 25G and Rule 81, the termination was not illegal; accordingly, the complaint was dismissed. The Industrial Court dismissed the workman’s revision application on 28 July 2005. The workman then filed Writ Petition No. 4669 of 2005. The second complaint (ULP No. 84 of 1997) concerned a termination dated 15 April 1997 by way of a public notice published in a newspaper, on the ground that the workman had been absent from duty without intimation since 1 March 1997. The workman asserted that he had submitted a leave application and medical certificate, and that the termination was without a charge-sheet or departmental enquiry, amounting to an unfair labour practice. The employer claimed that several show-cause notices were sent but were refused by the workman. The Labour Court, on 20 October 2004, allowed the complaint, declared the termination an unfair labour practice, and directed reinstatement with full back wages. The Industrial Court affirmed this order on 3 March 2005, dismissing the employer’s revision application. The employer then filed Writ Petition No. 5088 of 2005. Both writ petitions were heard together by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. By a common judgment and order dated 7 July 2008, the Single Judge dismissed the workman’s Writ Petition No. 4669 of 2005 and allowed the employer’s Writ Petition No. 5088 of 2005, thereby setting aside the order of reinstatement and back wages. Aggrieved, the workman preferred the instant Letters Patent Appeals. The appeals were heard by a Division Bench comprising A.H. Joshi and P.B. Varale, JJ. The judgment extracts submitted end abruptly and do not contain the final decision of the Division Bench; therefore, the outcome of the LPAs remains unascertained from the provided text.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Retrenchment - Termination of Daily-Wage Worker - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 25F and 25G; Bombay Industrial Disputes Rules, 1947, Rules 80 and 81; MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, Item 1(b) of Schedule IV - The appellant/workman challenged his termination dated 21.03.1990 on the ground that the employer failed to comply with the provisions relating to notice, retrenchment compensation and seniority list. The Labour Court held that the workman was a daily-wage temporary employee not holding a sanctioned post, hence the termination did not amount to retrenchment and the non-compliance of the said provisions did not vitiate the termination; the Industrial Court and the Single Judge affirmed this view (Paras 3-4, 8). B) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Termination for Absence Without Enquiry - MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, Item 1(b) of Schedule IV - The second termination, effected on 15.04.1997 by public notice on the ground of absence from duty, was challenged as illegal for want of a charge-sheet and departmental enquiry. The Labour Court declared it an unfair labour practice and ordered reinstatement with full back wages; however, on the employer's writ petition, the Single Judge set aside that order, allowing the employer’s challenge (Paras 5-6). C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Interference with Labour Court Orders - The Single Judge exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to examine the correctness of the orders passed by the Labour Court and Industrial Court; the Division Bench was called upon to decide whether the Single Judge committed any error in dismissing the workman’s writ petition and allowing the employer’s writ petition (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the appellant/workman was in violation of Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and Rules 80 and 81 of the Bombay Industrial Disputes Rules, 1947, amounting to an unfair labour practice under Item 1(b) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971; Whether the second termination for alleged absence without a departmental enquiry constitutes an unfair labour practice and whether the Single Judge was justified in interfering with the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court.
Law Points
- termination of daily wage worker
- retrenchment
- compliance of Section 25F and Section 25G of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- unfair labour practice under Item 1(b) Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- termination for absence without enquiry
- reinstatement and back wages
- writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of Constitution
