Case Note & Summary
The writ petition challenged the order dated 28/02/2025 passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Jalna in Complaint ULP No. 225/2019. The Industrial Court had declared that the petitioner-employer engaged in unfair labour practices under Section 28 read with Items 1(a), 1(b), 4(a) and 5 of Schedule I and Items 2, 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, set aside the termination orders dated 31.1.2020 and 1.2.2020, and directed reinstatement of the workmen with 50% backwages. The petitioner-employer, L. G Balakrishnan & Bros Ltd., a manufacturer of chain kits, employed about 550 workers. The respondent-workmen were permanent workers who had formed a union and demanded a wage rise, leading to alleged hostile acts by the management. The workmen filed Complaint ULP No. 225/2019 alleging that the employer discriminated against them for union activities, kept them idle, insisted on execution of good conduct bonds, and later terminated 37 workmen on the ground that their educational qualification certificates were found to be forged after verification. The employer contended that the terminations were due to loss of confidence because the certificates were not genuine, and that the Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction since the termination occurred after filing of the complaint, and the matter should have been before the Labour Court under Section 7 of the MRTU & PULP Act. The employer also argued that the Industrial Court curtailed its right to cross-examine the workmen, violating natural justice. The judgment text provided, however, is incomplete and does not include the High Court's analysis of these submissions or its final decision. The Industrial Court had earlier formulated issues on maintainability, legality of termination, commission of unfair labour practices, and entitlement to relief, and ruled against the employer on all counts. The matter came before the High Court under writ jurisdiction; the judgment was reserved on 29.09.2025 and pronounced on 17.10.2025. Due to the incomplete text, the High Court's reasoning, operative part, and final outcome are not known.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court erred in holding that the petitioner committed unfair labour practices and directing reinstatement of terminated workmen, and whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction after termination and violated natural justice by curtailing cross-examination.
Law Points
- unfair labour practice
- termination for loss of confidence
- lack of jurisdiction
- Industrial Court versus Labour Court jurisdiction
- right to cross-examination
- natural justice
- MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- reinstatement with backwages
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (10) 106
Writ Petition No. 9900 of 2025
Mr. S.V. Dankh for petitioner, Mr. T.K. Prabhakaran for respondents
L. G Balakrishnan & Bros Ltd.
Aurangabad Mazdoor Union (CITU) & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging Industrial Court order that declared termination of workmen as unfair labour practice and directed reinstatement with backwages.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner-employer sought to quash the Industrial Court order and dismiss the complaint.
Filing Reason
Alleged that Industrial Court erred in curtailing cross-examination rights, lacked jurisdiction after termination, and termination was for genuine loss of confidence due to fake certificates.
Previous Decisions
Industrial Court in Complaint ULP No. 225/2019 found against petitioner and directed reinstatement with 50% backwages.
Issues
Whether the complaint was maintainable?
Whether the employer proved that the termination was legal due to loss of confidence?
Whether the employer engaged in unfair labour practices under Section 28 read with Schedule I and IV?
Whether the workmen entitled to reliefs?
Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction after termination of service?
Whether the curtailment of cross-examination violated natural justice?
Submissions/Arguments
The Industrial Court curtailed the petitioner’s right to cross-examine all complainants, violating natural justice; matter should be remanded.
After termination, the complaint became infructuous and only the Labour Court under Section 7 had jurisdiction to decide legality of termination.
The workmen failed to demonstrate any unfair labour practice under Schedule II as termination was not a counter-blast to union activities.
The termination was due to loss of confidence after verification revealed fake educational qualification certificates, and no unfair labour practice was committed.
Judgment Excerpts
By the impugned order the Industrial Court declared that the petitioners herein indulged in unfair labour practices under section 28 r/w Item Nos. 1(a), 1(b), 4(a) and 5 of Schedule I and Items 2, 5, 6 and 9 Schedule-IV of the MRTU & PULP Act and directed the petitioner to desist from committing such unfair labour practices.
The Industrial Court has also quashed and set aside the termination orders dated 31.1.2020 and 1.2.2020 issued to the complainants/workmen by the petitioner and directed the petitioner to reinstate the complainants within two months of the passing of the order.
On 31.1.2020, the petitioner terminated 29 workers, and on 1.2.2020, 08 workmen, alleging failure on their part to produce their original copy of their certificate of educational qualifications.
The petitioner checked with the educational institutions of the complainants based on the copy of EQC submitted when they joined the petitioner. The educational institutions confirmed that 38 certificates were not genuine and were not issued by them.
Procedural History
The workmen filed Complaint ULP No. 225/2019 before the Industrial Court at Jalna alleging unfair labour practices. The Industrial Court passed an interim order on 11.12.2019 directing workmen to join work and restraining change of service conditions. The employer issued termination orders on 31.01.2020 and 01.02.2020; the complaint was amended to challenge the terminations. The Industrial Court, after hearing, passed the final order on 28.02.2025, declaring unfair labour practices and directing reinstatement with 50% backwages. The employer filed the present writ petition challenging that order. The High Court reserved judgment on 29.09.2025 and pronounced it on 17.10.2025, but the text of the judgment is incomplete, lacking the court's analysis and final decision.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Section 7, 28, Schedule I Items 1(a), 1(b), 4(a), 5, Schedule II, Schedule IV Items 2, 5, 6, 9, 10
