Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by Masina Hospital (the management) against a common order of a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the Labour Court's decision in favor of the workman, Hari Ganpat Kadam. The workman was employed as a Ward Boy since 1967 and had put in twenty years of service. He was also a union leader actively participating in union activities. The management charge-sheeted him for allegedly assaulting co-workers, suspended him, and after an inquiry, dismissed him from service on 10-10-1987. The workman filed a complaint under Item 1, Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MURTU & PULP Act) before the Labour Court. In the Part I award, the Labour Court found that the inquiry was not fair and proper and gave the management an opportunity to prove the charges before the court. The management challenged this by way of a revision application, which was rejected by the Industrial Court, but the Industrial Court remanded the matter back to the Labour Court for a fresh decision on the preliminary issue. The workman then filed a writ petition, and the High Court set aside the remand order and directed the management to lead evidence and prove the charge before the Labour Court. Thereafter, the management examined witnesses, but the Labour Court, by judgment dated 3rd March 2001, held that the misconduct was not proved against the workman and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages. The Labour Court noted that the management did not produce any medical evidence or injury report to show that there was an assault, and the oral evidence of witnesses was disbelieved. The management filed writ petitions, which were dismissed by the Single Judge. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in the present appeals, upheld the Single Judge's order, finding no perversity in the Labour Court's findings. The court held that the management failed to prove the charge of assault, and the workman was entitled to reinstatement with full back-wages.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Burden of Proof - MURTU & PULP Act, 1971, Item 1, Schedule IV - The employer must prove the charge of misconduct by leading cogent evidence; in a case of alleged assault, medical evidence or injury report is essential to establish the fact of assault. The Labour Court disbelieved the oral evidence of management witnesses as no documentary evidence such as medical report was produced. Held that the management failed to discharge its burden (Paras 2-4). B) Industrial Law - Reinstatement - Back-wages - MURTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Where the dismissal is found to be unjustified, the workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages. The Labour Court's order was upheld by the High Court as no perversity was shown (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court's finding that the charge of assault was not proved against the workman and the direction for reinstatement with full back-wages was correct.
Final Decision
Appeals dismissed. The common order dated 4th May, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 3108 of 2002 and 1132 of 2003 is upheld.
Law Points
- burden of proof on employer to prove misconduct
- requirement of medical evidence for assault charge
- reliability of oral evidence
- reinstatement with back-wages for unfair dismissal
