Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Chandan Bapurao Karwade and Rajesh Bharatlal Pande, were appointed on 18 April 1995 as Accountant and Instructor respectively in a technical workshop run by the respondent no.1 Society for physically handicapped persons. Their appointments were on probation for one year, which was extended. On 25 March 1996, their services were approved on a permanent basis from 1 July 1996. However, on 23 September 1996, the District Social Welfare Officer issued revised orders stating that if their services were not satisfactory, they could be terminated after one month's notice, and that their services would be governed by the Special Code for Schools for Handicapped Persons. On 21 March 1997, the Society terminated their services with effect from 30 April 1997, citing unsatisfactory work during probation. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) before the Labour Court. The Labour Court allowed the complaint, holding that the termination was illegal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service. The respondent nos.1 and 2 filed a revision application before the Industrial Court, which allowed the revision and set aside the Labour Court's order. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition. The legal issues were whether the termination without a domestic inquiry constituted an unfair labour practice and whether the Industrial Court erred in reversing the reinstatement order. The petitioners argued that the termination was punitive and stigmatic, requiring a domestic inquiry, and that the employer failed to justify the termination. The respondents contended that the termination was simpliciter during probation and no inquiry was needed. The court analyzed the evidence and found that the termination was based on unsatisfactory work, which was a punitive ground, and the employer did not lead any evidence to justify it. The court held that the termination was an unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The court further held that the Industrial Court erred in reversing the Labour Court's order, as the Labour Court had correctly found the termination illegal. The 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.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Termination of Probationer - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Schedule IV Item 1 - Termination of services of probationers without holding a domestic inquiry on the ground of unsatisfactory work constitutes an unfair labour practice - Held that the employer must justify the termination by leading evidence, and failure to do so renders the termination illegal (Paras 5-8). B) Industrial Law - Reinstatement - Relief for Illegal Termination - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Section 28 - Where termination is found to be illegal, reinstatement with continuity of service is the appropriate relief - Held that the Labour Court's order of reinstatement was justified and the Industrial Court erred in reversing it (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the petitioners' services during probation without holding a domestic inquiry constitutes an unfair labour practice under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, and whether the Industrial Court erred in setting aside the Labour Court's order of reinstatement.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The judgment of the Industrial Court dated 30.09.2009 is set aside. The order of the Labour Court dated 30.04.2008 directing reinstatement of the petitioners with continuity of service is restored.
Law Points
- Termination of a probationer without holding a domestic inquiry is illegal if it is punitive or stigmatic
- Unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Burden of proof on employer to justify termination
- Reinstatement with continuity of service is proper relief for illegal termination
