Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran and another, challenged the order dated 12/10/2009 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane, which allowed the complaint of unfair labour practice filed by the respondent, Rajeshwar S. Rane. The respondent was appointed as a Junior Clerk on 16/2/1981 and was granted the benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP) after 12 years of service in 1996. On 15/3/2000, the respondent was promoted as a Senior Clerk and posted at Chiplun, District Ratnagiri. He was asked to join by 28/3/2000. The respondent made a representation on 3/4/2000 requesting a four-month extension to join due to his sons' ongoing examinations at Dombivali and his own health issues (diabetes and high blood pressure). Without considering his representation, the petitioners issued an order on 20/6/2000 cancelling the promotion and withdrawing the ACP benefit, stating that the respondent was not interested in joining the promotional post. The respondent then filed a complaint of unfair labour practice before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court set aside the order dated 20/6/2000, holding that the cancellation of promotion and withdrawal of ACP benefits without affording an opportunity of hearing amounted to an unfair labour practice under Items 5, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The High Court, in the present writ petition, examined whether the Industrial Court's order suffered from any perversity or error of law. The High Court noted that the Industrial Court had considered the evidence, including the respondent's representation and the employer's failure to respond, and concluded that the employer's action was arbitrary and in violation of natural justice. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the Industrial Court's findings, as they were based on material on record and not perverse. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Cancellation of Promotion - Items 5, 9, 10 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The employer cancelled the promotion of the employee and withdrew the benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP) on the ground that the employee did not join the promotional post at the transferred place. The Industrial Court held that the action was arbitrary and without affording an opportunity of hearing, amounting to unfair labour practice. The High Court upheld the Industrial Court's order, finding no perversity or error of law. (Paras 2-10) B) Industrial Law - Natural Justice - Withdrawal of Benefits - Items 5, 9, 10 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The employer's order dated 20/6/2000 cancelled the promotion and withdrew ACP benefits without giving any show cause notice or opportunity to the employee. The Industrial Court found this to be in violation of principles of natural justice and an unfair labour practice. The High Court affirmed that the Industrial Court's findings were based on evidence and not perverse. (Paras 6-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the cancellation of promotion and withdrawal of Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefits by the employer without affording an opportunity of hearing constitutes an unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order dated 12/10/2009. The Industrial Court's order setting aside the cancellation of promotion and withdrawal of ACP benefits was confirmed.
Law Points
- Unfair Labour Practice
- Cancellation of Promotion
- Withdrawal of ACP Benefits
- Natural Justice
- MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Schedule IV Items 5
- 9
- 10
