Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rajkumar Mohod, was employed as a machine operator with Goenka Vineer Pvt. Ltd. since 1994, earning Rs.53 per day. He claimed to have completed 240 days of continuous service each year. On 30 August 1998, he was informed that his services were no longer required and another person had been appointed. He issued notices on 9 and 14 September 1998 demanding reinstatement, but the employer replied on 15 September 1998 alleging unauthorized absence. The appellant filed a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) on 15 October 1998, alleging unfair labour practice due to non-compliance with Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He also sought interim relief under Section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act. The employer filed a written statement denying termination and claiming the appellant was absent from duty. The Labour Court, by order dated 21 January 2006, granted interim relief directing the employer to allow the appellant to resume duty. The employer did not comply and failed to lead evidence thereafter. The Labour Court, by final order dated 31 August 2011, allowed the complaint, holding that the employer had committed an unfair labour practice, and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. The employer challenged this order in writ petition No.376/2012, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 9 February 2012. The appellant then filed the present Letters Patent Appeal. The Division Bench considered the employer's failure to lead evidence after the interim order and the admission that the appellant had completed 240 days of continuous service. The court held that the burden shifted to the employer to show that the termination was not retrenchment or was justified, and the employer's failure to lead evidence entitled the appellant to full relief. The court also noted that the employer did not challenge the interim order and did not comply with it. The Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, and restored the Labour Court's order granting reinstatement with continuity and back wages.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Retrenchment - Sections 25-F, 25-G, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Section 28, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The appellant-complainant alleged termination without compliance with mandatory provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The employer denied termination but failed to lead evidence after the Labour Court ordered interim relief under Section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The Labour Court granted reinstatement with continuity and back wages. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The Division Bench held that the employer's failure to rebut the complainant's evidence and the admission of continuous service of 240 days justified the grant of full relief. The appeal was allowed, and the order of the Labour Court was restored. (Paras 2-28) B) Industrial Law - Interim Relief - Section 30(2), Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The Labour Court granted interim relief under Section 30(2) directing the employer to allow the complainant to resume duty. The employer failed to comply and did not lead evidence thereafter. The Division Bench held that the Labour Court's order granting interim relief was justified and the employer's non-compliance and failure to lead evidence entitled the complainant to full relief. (Paras 10-15) C) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Unfair Labour Practice - The employer admitted that the complainant had completed 240 days of continuous service. The burden shifted to the employer to show that the termination was not retrenchment or was justified. The employer failed to lead evidence, and the Labour Court correctly drew an adverse inference. The Division Bench upheld the finding that the employer had committed an unfair labour practice. (Paras 16-22)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition challenging the Labour Court's order granting reinstatement with continuity and back wages to the appellant-complainant, and whether the employer's failure to lead evidence after the Labour Court's order under Section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 justified the grant of full relief.
Final Decision
The Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 09/02/2012, and restored the order of the Labour Court dated 31/08/2011 granting reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.
Law Points
- burden of proof in unfair labour practice complaints
- retrenchment without compliance with Section 25-F and 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- interim relief under Section 30(2) of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act
- 1971
- reinstatement with continuity and back wages
