Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an employee working as a Chowkidar at Government Shishu Sadan, Padampura, Aurangabad, filed a complaint before the Labour Court, Aurangabad, alleging that his termination from service effective 31st October 1994 constituted an unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The Labour Court, by judgment dated 2nd February 2008 in Complaint (ULP) No.399 of 1994, found the termination to be an unfair labour practice and granted the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service, though no back wages were awarded. The employer (Respondent No.1) challenged this order before the Industrial Court, Aurangabad, in Revision (ULP) No.29 of 2008. The Industrial Court, by judgment dated 29th July 2010, reversed the Labour Court's decision, effectively dismissing the complaint. Aggrieved, the employee filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The High Court examined the scope of the Industrial Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act. It held that the Industrial Court, while exercising revisional powers, cannot act as an appellate court and reappreciate evidence unless the Labour Court's finding is perverse or based on no evidence. In this case, the Industrial Court had reappreciated the evidence without recording any finding that the Labour Court's decision was perverse. Therefore, the Industrial Court exceeded its jurisdiction. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Industrial Court's judgment, and restored the Labour Court's order of reinstatement with continuity of service. The court clarified that since the Labour Court had not granted back wages, that aspect was not disturbed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope of Industrial Court under Section 44 of MRTU & PULP Act - The Industrial Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, cannot act as a court of appeal and reappreciate evidence unless the Labour Court's finding is perverse or based on no evidence - The revisional power is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or law apparent on record - In the present case, the Industrial Court reversed the Labour Court's finding of unfair labour practice by reappreciating evidence without recording that the finding was perverse, which exceeded its jurisdiction (Paras 1-10). B) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Termination of Service - The Labour Court found that the petitioner's termination from 31st October 1994 was an unfair labour practice under the MRTU & PULP Act - The Labour Court granted reinstatement with continuity but without back wages - The Industrial Court's reversal was set aside by the High Court, restoring the Labour Court's order (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act), could reappreciate evidence and reverse the Labour Court's finding of unfair labour practice without establishing perversity.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 29th July 2010 in Revision (ULP) No.29 of 2008, and restored the judgment of the Labour Court dated 2nd February 2008 in Complaint (ULP) No.399 of 1994, which granted reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages.
Law Points
- Industrial Court's revisional jurisdiction under MRTU & PULP Act is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or perversity
- not reappreciating evidence
- Labour Court's finding of unfair labour practice based on evidence cannot be interfered with unless perverse
- Reinstatement with continuity but without back wages is appropriate relief for illegal termination
