Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, a trade union (Maharashtra State Road Transport Kamgar Sanghatana) and its office bearer (Petitioner No.2), challenged the order of the Industrial Court dismissing their complaint under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The complaint alleged that the respondent Corporation violated clause 30 of a settlement dated 19.12.1985 by dismissing Petitioner No.2 without consulting the union. The facts reveal that Petitioner No.2 was employed for over 23 years and was an activist of the union. In September 1989, the Corporation proposed to redistribute work in the accounts section and assured consultation. However, allegations were made against Respondent No.4 regarding conduct with female workers. A chargesheet was issued to Petitioner No.2 on 31.3.1990, and a disciplinary enquiry found him guilty. A show-cause notice was issued on 23.1.1991, and on 25.1.1991, the Regional Manager wrote to the union informing of the decision to dismiss, citing clause 30. Petitioner No.2 submitted his explanation on 27.1.1991, but was dismissed on 1.2.1991. The union claimed it received the letter on 14.1.1991 (though dated 25.1.1991) and that its general secretary was on tour until 7.2.1991. The Industrial Court, after examining evidence, dismissed the complaint, finding that the union was consulted. The High Court, in writ jurisdiction, held that the Industrial Court's findings were based on evidence and not perverse. The burden of proving unfair labour practice was on the petitioners, which they failed to discharge. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Consultation with Union - Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) - The complaint alleged violation of clause 30 of a settlement requiring consultation with the union before dismissal. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint after appreciating evidence, finding that the union was consulted. The High Court held that the Industrial Court's findings were based on evidence and not perverse, and that the burden of proving unfair labour practice was on the complainant. The petition under Article 226 was dismissed as no interference was warranted. (Paras 1-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the complaint under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, specifically whether there was a violation of clause 30 of the settlement dated 19.12.1985 requiring consultation with the union before dismissing an employee.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs, upholding the Industrial Court's order dismissing the complaint.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- consultation with union before dismissal
- violation of settlement
- Items 9 and 10 Schedule IV MRTU & PULP Act
- burden of proof on complainant
- appreciation of evidence by Industrial Court
- scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (01) 46
WRIT PETITION NO.6108 OF 1999
Ms. Divya Chavan and Ms. Smita Deokar for the Petitioners, Mr. G.A. Karmarkar i/b. G.S. Hegde & Associates for Respondent Nos.1 and 2
Maharashtra State Road Transport Kamgar Sanghatana & Anr.
The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Industrial Court dismissing a complaint under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act alleging unfair labour practice by the employer.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to quash the Industrial Court's order and to declare that the respondents had committed unfair labour practices, with consequential relief of reinstatement and back-wages for Petitioner No.2.
Filing Reason
The petitioners alleged that the respondent Corporation violated clause 30 of the settlement dated 19.12.1985 by dismissing Petitioner No.2 without consulting the union, constituting unfair labour practices under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioners under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the complaint under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act?
Whether there was a violation of clause 30 of the settlement dated 19.12.1985 requiring consultation with the union before dismissing an employee?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the Corporation did not consult the union before dismissing Petitioner No.2, violating clause 30 of the settlement, and that the Industrial Court ignored evidence showing the letter dated 25.1.1991 was received on 14.1.1991, indicating no consultation.
The respondents argued that the union was consulted as per clause 30, and the Industrial Court's findings were based on evidence and not perverse.
Ratio Decidendi
The burden of proving unfair labour practice is on the complainant. The Industrial Court's findings, based on appreciation of evidence, are not to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless perverse. In this case, the Industrial Court correctly found that the union was consulted before dismissal, and no violation of clause 30 of the settlement was established.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petition has been preferred against the order of the Industrial Court by which the complaint filed by the petitioners under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act has been dismissed.
The Industrial Court has appreciated the evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that the union was consulted before the dismissal of Petitioner No.2.
The burden of proving that an unfair labour practice has been committed is on the complainant. The petitioners have failed to discharge that burden.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed a complaint under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act on 31.7.1991 before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act): Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV
