Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Suraj Pressings Pvt. Limited, challenged the judgment of the Labour Court dated 04/01/2014, which allowed Complaint (ULP) No.50/2006 filed by the respondent, Suresh Rabhaji Gaikwad, an employee. The Labour Court declared that the petitioner had engaged in an unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act), by orally terminating the respondent on 10/08/2006. The Labour Court set aside the termination and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. Both parties filed revision petitions before the Industrial Court: the petitioner challenged the order of reinstatement and back wages, while the respondent sought 100% back wages. The Industrial Court, by judgment dated 22/02/2019, dismissed both revision petitions, thereby upholding the Labour Court's order. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition. The petitioner argued that the respondent had voluntarily resigned on 08/08/2006, stopped reporting for duty from 09/08/2006, and later accepted a settlement of Rs.14,385/- on 19/09/2006, which was paid as his legal dues. The respondent contended that he was orally terminated and had not resigned. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found no merit in the petitioner's submissions. The court noted that the Labour Court and Industrial Court had concurrently held that the respondent did not voluntarily resign and that the management had failed to prove a voluntary resignation. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the orders of the lower courts. The court held that the concurrent findings of fact did not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Oral Termination - Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The Labour Court and Industrial Court concurrently found that the management had orally terminated the employee without following due process, which amounted to an unfair labour practice. The employee had not resigned voluntarily; rather, he was forced to leave. The courts directed reinstatement with continuity and 50% back wages. (Paras 2-3) B) Industrial Law - Reinstatement - Back Wages - The Industrial Court dismissed both revision petitions, upholding the Labour Court's order of reinstatement with continuity and 50% back wages. The management's challenge was rejected as the employee had not voluntarily resigned and the termination was oral and illegal. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the oral termination of the respondent/employee by the petitioner/management constituted an unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, and whether the employee was entitled to reinstatement with continuity and back wages.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court. The petitioner/management was directed to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and 50% back wages.
Law Points
- Unfair Labour Practice
- Oral Termination
- Reinstatement
- Back Wages
- MRTU and PULP Act
- 1971
- Item 1 of Schedule IV
