Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an employee of M/s. Modistone Ltd., challenged the order of the Industrial Court dated 14.09.2001 which allowed a revision application under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) and quashed the Labour Court's order dated 30.11.1998 in Complaint (ULP) No.115 of 1995. The Labour Court had declared that the employer engaged in unfair labour practices and directed the employer to either pay lumpsum wages for 14 months or extract work from the complainant for 14 months and pay wages regularly. The dispute arose when the employer, by letter dated 07.07.1994, intimated the petitioner that his date of birth on record was 31.12.1994, which would have resulted in his retirement. The petitioner immediately made a representation on 29.09.1994 along with supporting documents, namely a School Leaving Certificate and Passport, which were not disputed. The Labour Court relied on these documents and passed the order. The Industrial Court, in revision, re-appreciated the evidence, gave importance to oral admissions contrary to the documents, and overlooked the two documents on the ground that they were produced at a later stage. The High Court held that the scope of Section 44 of the Act is very limited and the Industrial Court wrongly appreciated the material on record. The High Court noted that the employer intimated the wrong date of birth at the fag end of the petitioner's service career, and the petitioner immediately provided supporting documents. The principle that correction of date of birth cannot be sought at the fag end of service was inapplicable because it was the employer who intimated the wrong date at the fag end. The High Court set aside the Industrial Court's order and restored the Labour Court's order.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Correction of Date of Birth - Section 44 of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Revisional Jurisdiction - The Industrial Court exceeded its limited revisional jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence and giving importance to oral admissions while overlooking undisputed documentary evidence (School Leaving Certificate and Passport) - Held that the revisional court cannot substitute its own view when the Labour Court's order was based on reliable documents and the employer had intimated the wrong date of birth at the fag end of the employee's service career (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) could re-appreciate evidence and set aside the Labour Court's order which was based on undisputed documentary evidence regarding correction of date of birth.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Industrial Court's order dated 14.09.2001, and restored the Labour Court's order dated 30.11.1998 in Complaint (ULP) No.115 of 1995.
Law Points
- Scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 44 of MRTU & PULP Act is limited
- Revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence to substitute its own view
- Employer's intimation of wrong date of birth at fag end of service career shifts burden
- Supporting documents like School Leaving Certificate and Passport are reliable evidence
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (05) 13
Writ Petition No. 5524 of 2001
Mr. Neel Helekar for the petitioner, Mr. S.A. Bhagwat for respondent no.2/Official Liquidator
Shri Narullakhan Sikanderkhan
M/s. Modistone Ltd. and The Official Liquidator, High Court, Mumbai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Industrial Court which allowed a revision application under Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act and quashed the Labour Court's order in a complaint of unfair labour practice regarding correction of date of birth.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to set aside the Industrial Court's order dated 14.09.2001 and restore the Labour Court's order dated 30.11.1998.
Filing Reason
The Industrial Court re-appreciated evidence and set aside the Labour Court's order which had relied on undisputed documentary evidence (School Leaving Certificate and Passport) to correct the petitioner's date of birth.
Previous Decisions
Labour Court order dated 30.11.1998 in Complaint (ULP) No.115 of 1995 declared unfair labour practice and directed the employer to pay lumpsum wages for 14 months or extract work for 14 months. This was quashed by the Industrial Court on 14.09.2001.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court under Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act could re-appreciate evidence and set aside the Labour Court's order which was based on undisputed documentary evidence.
Whether the principle that correction of date of birth cannot be sought at the fag end of service applies when the employer intimated the wrong date of birth at the fag end.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Industrial Court exceeded its limited revisional jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence and ignoring undisputed documents.
The respondent/Official Liquidator supported the Industrial Court's order.
Ratio Decidendi
The revisional jurisdiction under Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act is limited and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence to substitute the Labour Court's view, especially when the Labour Court's order is based on undisputed documentary evidence. The principle that correction of date of birth cannot be sought at the fag end of service does not apply when the employer itself intimated the wrong date of birth at the fag end of the employee's service career.
Judgment Excerpts
The scope of Section 44 of the Act is very limited.
The learned Industrial Court, in view of above, wrongly appreciated the available material on record and basically those two documents, the existence and/or validity of which were never raised or disputed at any stage.
Therefore the principle, in any way, is inapplicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case that of having moved for correction of date of birth at the fag end of the service career.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No.115 of 1995 before the Labour Court, Mumbai, which passed an order on 30.11.1998 declaring unfair labour practice and directing the employer to pay lumpsum wages for 14 months or extract work for 14 months. The employer filed a revision application under Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act before the Industrial Court, which allowed the revision on 14.09.2001 and quashed the Labour Court's order. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act): Section 44
