Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Maharashtra State Financial Corporation, dismissed its employee, Respondent No.1, under Regulation 39 of the Bombay State Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1954, after learning that he had been convicted under Section 497 IPC for an offence involving moral turpitude. The employee had not disclosed the pending criminal case at the time of appointment. The dismissal order was issued on 5.4.1989. The employee challenged the dismissal by filing a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act, alleging unfair labour practices. During the pendency of the complaint, the employee was acquitted by the Sessions Court on 9.5.1991. The Labour Court declared that the petitioner had committed unfair labour practices under Item 1(b), (f), and (g) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act and directed reinstatement with continuity and full backwages from 7.8.1990 (date of filing complaint) but not from the date of dismissal. The Industrial Court confirmed this order. The High Court, in the present writ petition, examined whether the Labour and Industrial Courts had erred. The High Court noted that the employee's acquittal, though subsequent to the dismissal, was a relevant fact. The court found that the Labour Court had considered the acquittal and had not granted backwages for the period between dismissal and filing of complaint, which was a balanced approach. The High Court held that the findings of the Labour Court and Industrial Court were based on evidence and were not perverse. The petition was dismissed, and the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court were upheld.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practices - Dismissal Based on Conviction - Item 1(b), (f), (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The employer dismissed the employee under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulations after the employee was convicted for an offence under Section 497 IPC. The employee was later acquitted by the Sessions Court. The Labour Court and Industrial Court held that the dismissal constituted unfair labour practices and ordered reinstatement with backwages from the date of filing the complaint. The High Court upheld the orders, finding no perversity or error of law. (Paras 1-10)
B) Service Law - Conviction Involving Moral Turpitude - Effect of Subsequent Acquittal - Regulation 39 of the Bombay State Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1954 - The employee was dismissed for conviction of an offence involving moral turpitude. However, the conviction was set aside on appeal and the employee was acquitted. The High Court held that the acquittal, though subsequent, vitiated the basis of the dismissal, and the employer could not continue to rely on the conviction. The Labour Court's direction to reinstate with continuity and backwages from the date of complaint was upheld. (Paras 3-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dismissal of an employee based on a conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude is sustainable when the employee is subsequently acquitted in appeal, and whether the Labour and Industrial Courts correctly held that the employer committed unfair labour practices.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court directing reinstatement of Respondent No.1 with continuity and backwages from 7.8.1990.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Item 1(b)(f)(g) Schedule IV MRTU & PULP Act
- Regulation 39 Staff Regulations
- conviction involving moral turpitude
- acquittal subsequent to dismissal
- reinstatement with backwages
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (03) 102
WRIT PETITION NO.5752 OF 1999
Mr.V.P. Sawant for Petitioner, Mr.V.P. Vaidya for Respondent No.1, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 – formal parties
Maharashtra State Financial Corporation
Shri Nimba Jagannath Tamboli & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court which declared that the petitioner had committed unfair labour practices and directed reinstatement of the respondent employee.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (Maharashtra State Financial Corporation) sought to quash the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court that directed reinstatement of Respondent No.1 with continuity and backwages.
Filing Reason
The petitioner dismissed Respondent No.1 under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulations after learning of his conviction under Section 497 IPC. Respondent No.1 challenged the dismissal as an unfair labour practice. The Labour Court and Industrial Court ruled in favor of Respondent No.1, leading to the present petition.
Previous Decisions
Labour Court in complaint (ULP) No.145 of 1990 declared unfair labour practices and ordered reinstatement with backwages from 7.8.1990. Industrial Court in revision application (ULP) No.152 of 1997 confirmed the Labour Court order on 2.9.1999.
Issues
Whether the dismissal of an employee based on a conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude is sustainable when the employee is subsequently acquitted in appeal.
Whether the Labour Court and Industrial Court correctly held that the employer committed unfair labour practices under Item 1(b), (f), and (g) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the dismissal was valid under Regulation 39 as the employee had been convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude, and the subsequent acquittal did not affect the validity of the dismissal.
Respondent No.1 contended that the dismissal was based on a conviction that was later set aside, and therefore the employer had no basis to terminate his services, constituting an unfair labour practice.
Ratio Decidendi
The dismissal of an employee based on a conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude cannot be sustained when the conviction is subsequently set aside on appeal and the employee is acquitted. The acquittal, though subsequent, vitiates the basis of the dismissal, and the employer's failure to reinstate the employee after acquittal constitutes an unfair labour practice. The Labour Court's order granting backwages only from the date of filing the complaint, not from the date of dismissal, was a balanced and reasonable approach.
Judgment Excerpts
The order impugned in the present petition has been passed by the Industrial Court on 2.9.1999 in revision application (ULP) No.152 of 1997 confirming the order passed by the Labour Court in complaint (ULP) No.145 of 1990.
The Labour Court had declared that the petitioner had committed unfair labour practices under Item 1(b), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act by terminating the services of Respondent No.1.
The petitioner therefore exercised its powers under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulations and dismissed workman as he had been convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude.
Respondent No.1 was acquitted by the Sessions Court, Nandurbar in criminal Appeal No.23 of 1990 by the judgment and order dated 9.5.1991.
Procedural History
The employee (Respondent No.1) was dismissed on 5.4.1989. He filed complaint (ULP) No.145 of 1990 before the Labour Court on 7.8.1990. During the pendency of the complaint, he was acquitted by the Sessions Court on 9.5.1991. The Labour Court allowed the complaint on an unspecified date, directing reinstatement with backwages from 7.8.1990. The petitioner filed revision application (ULP) No.152 of 1997 before the Industrial Court, which was dismissed on 2.9.1999. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed on 1.3.2011.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Schedule IV, Item 1(b), (f), (g)
- Bombay State Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1954: Regulation 39
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 497
- State Financial Corporations Act, 1951:
