Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, the Divisional Controller and Divisional Traffic Superintendent of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, challenged the judgment of the Labour Court dated 18.04.1998 in Complaint (ULP) No.76/1996, which partly allowed the complaint of the respondent, a conductor, and directed his reappointment as a fresh appointee within one month. The respondent had been dismissed from service on 18.05.1994 after a disciplinary enquiry found him guilty of misconduct for collecting fare from three passengers without issuing tickets and misbehaving with the checking squad on 21.01.1994. The Labour Court, under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, granted the relief of reappointment as a fresh appointee. Both parties filed revision petitions before the Industrial Court, which were dismissed on 08.12.1998. The corporation then filed this writ petition. The High Court noted that the respondent was 49 years old in 1999 and would have superannuated at age 60 in 2010. The court observed that the Labour Court had decided all issues simultaneously, but found no perversity in the order. The court held that the Labour Court has discretion to mould relief and that the order of reappointment as a fresh appointee was not perverse. The Industrial Court had correctly dismissed the revision petitions. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no interference warranted.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Reappointment as Fresh Appointee - Section 30(2) of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Labour Court partly allowed complaint and directed reappointment as fresh appointee - Held that Labour Court has discretion to mould relief and order of reappointment as fresh appointee is not perverse - Industrial Court dismissed revision petitions - Held that no interference is warranted in writ jurisdiction (Paras 3-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court's order of reappointment as a fresh appointee, instead of reinstatement with continuity of service, was justified and whether the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the revision petitions.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. No interference with the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court.
Law Points
- Labour Court has discretion to grant reinstatement as fresh appointee
- MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Section 30(2) of MRTU & PULP Act
- Industrial Court's revisional powers
- Writ Court's limited interference
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (06) 13
Writ Petition No.1143 of 1999
The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Dhule Division, Dhule and The Divisional Traffic Superintendent, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Dhule
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging Labour Court and Industrial Court orders in a complaint under MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 regarding dismissal of a conductor.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner corporation sought quashing of Labour Court order directing reappointment of respondent as fresh appointee and Industrial Court order dismissing revision petitions.
Filing Reason
Petitioner corporation challenged the Labour Court's order of reappointment as fresh appointee and the Industrial Court's dismissal of revision petitions.
Previous Decisions
Labour Court partly allowed complaint and directed reappointment as fresh appointee on 18.04.1998; Industrial Court dismissed both revision petitions on 08.12.1998.
Issues
Whether the Labour Court's order of reappointment as a fresh appointee was justified.
Whether the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the revision petitions.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner corporation argued that the Labour Court's order was perverse and that the Industrial Court should have interfered.
Respondent did not appear; no submissions made.
Ratio Decidendi
The Labour Court has discretion to mould relief under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, and the order of reappointment as a fresh appointee is not perverse. The Industrial Court correctly dismissed the revision petitions. No interference is warranted in writ jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
I find from the judgment of the Labour Court dated 18.04.1998 that it proceeded to decide all the issues at the same time though the law is crystallized for the last 60 years.
The Labour Court partly allowed the complaint and granted the relief of reappointment as a fresh appointee within one month.
Procedural History
Respondent was dismissed on 18.05.1994 after disciplinary enquiry. He filed Complaint (ULP) No.76/1996 before Labour Court, which partly allowed it on 18.04.1998 directing reappointment as fresh appointee. Both parties filed Revision (ULP) Nos.484/1998 and 493/1998 before Industrial Court, which dismissed them on 08.12.1998. Petitioner corporation filed Writ Petition No.1143 of 1999 before High Court, which was admitted on 08.03.1999. High Court dismissed the writ petition on 13.06.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act): Section 30(2)
