Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Divisional Controller of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, challenged the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 06.01.2003 which allowed Complaint (ULP) No.72/2000 filed by the respondent employee, Ramesh Kisan Choudhary. The respondent was appointed as a Security Guard in 1985 and granted permanency on 27.09.1996. He was allotted a residential quarter at Dhule. He was transferred to Nandurbar and reported there on 07.11.1998 but did not vacate the Dhule quarter, initially commuting daily. On 24.11.1999, he was brought back to Dhule. During his absence, the corporation charged him a nominal concessional rent of Rs.11.50 per month. Later, the corporation sought to recover rent at non-concessional rates and, after consulting the Public Works Department, calculated a recoverable amount of Rs.18,548/- based on a rate of Rs.1,954/- per month. The respondent filed a complaint before the Industrial Court alleging unfair labour practice. The Industrial Court, while noting that the respondent had not vacated the quarter and that the corporation had initially recovered Rs.412/- per month for 12 months as non-concessional rent, set aside the recovery order. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the Industrial Court's decision was based on the fact that the corporation had not followed proper procedure and had initially recovered a lower amount without proper assessment. The High Court held that there was no perversity or error of law in the Industrial Court's judgment and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Recovery of Rent - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court set aside the recovery of rent at non-concessional rates from an employee who continued to occupy a quarter after transfer, holding that the corporation had not followed proper procedure and had initially recovered a lower amount without proper assessment. The High Court upheld the Industrial Court's order, finding no perversity or error of law. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in setting aside the recovery of rent at non-concessional rates from the respondent employee, and whether the petitioner corporation acted in accordance with law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's judgment dated 06.01.2003 which set aside the recovery of rent at non-concessional rates from the respondent employee.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Recovery of rent
- Concessional rent
- Natural justice
- Industrial Court jurisdiction
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (06) 15
Writ Petition No.1363 of 2003
Shri D.S. Bagul for petitioner, Shri C.R. Deshpande for respondent
Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Division Dhule, Dhule
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the judgment of the Industrial Court which allowed a complaint alleging unfair labour practice by the employer corporation in recovering rent at non-concessional rates.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner corporation sought to quash the Industrial Court's order setting aside the recovery of rent.
Filing Reason
The corporation was aggrieved by the Industrial Court's judgment dated 06.01.2003 which allowed the respondent's complaint and set aside the recovery of Rs.18,548/- as non-concessional rent.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court, by judgment dated 06.01.2003, allowed Complaint (ULP) No.72/2000 filed by the respondent, setting aside the corporation's order for recovery of rent at non-concessional rates.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in setting aside the recovery of rent at non-concessional rates from the respondent employee.
Whether the petitioner corporation acted in accordance with law in recovering the rent.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner corporation argued that it had acted in accordance with law and the Industrial Court erred in setting aside the recovery.
The respondent employee contended that the corporation had not followed proper procedure and had initially recovered a lower amount without proper assessment.
Ratio Decidendi
The Industrial Court's decision was based on the fact that the corporation had not followed proper procedure and had initially recovered a lower amount without proper assessment. The High Court found no perversity or error of law in the Industrial Court's judgment.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner corporation is aggrieved by the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 06.01.2003 by which, the Industrial Court, though agreed in principle that the petitioner had acted in accordance with law, has allowed Complaint (ULP) No.72/2000 filed by the respondent.
The Industrial Court has concluded in paragraph 17 that the record clearly reveals that after he was posted at Nandurbar, he has not vacated the quarter at Dhule.
Procedural History
The respondent employee filed Complaint (ULP) No.72/2000 before the Industrial Court challenging the recovery of rent. The Industrial Court allowed the complaint on 06.01.2003. The petitioner corporation filed the present writ petition before the High Court challenging that judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971:
