Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute between the Municipal School Board, Pune (petitioners) and Mohan E. Jagtap (respondent), a watchman. The respondent filed a complaint before the Labour Court alleging unfair labour practice under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, claiming he was appointed on a permanent basis but was terminated by a letter dated 2.3.1992 without any inquiry. The Labour Court allowed the complaint, set aside the termination, and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages. The Industrial Court dismissed the revision filed by the employer. The employer then challenged both orders in the High Court. The High Court noted that the respondent had been reinstated as a watchman on daily wages on 6.7.1996 and was still in service. The court upheld the finding that the termination was an unfair labour practice as it was without any inquiry or notice. However, regarding backwages, the court observed that the respondent had not pleaded or proved that he was not gainfully employed after termination. The court held that full backwages are not automatic and the employee must show he was unemployed. Since the respondent failed to do so, the court modified the award of backwages from 100% to 50% for the period from termination to reinstatement. The petition was partly allowed, confirming reinstatement and continuity but reducing backwages.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Termination - Sections 28, 30 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The respondent was terminated by a letter dated 2.3.1992 without any inquiry or notice. The Labour Court held it to be an unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV and ordered reinstatement with full backwages. The Industrial Court dismissed the revision. The High Court upheld the finding of unfair labour practice and reinstatement but modified the backwages to 50% as the respondent failed to prove he was unemployed after termination. (Paras 1-6) B) Labour Law - Backwages - Burden of Proof - The employee must plead and prove that he was not gainfully employed after termination to claim full backwages. In the absence of such evidence, the court may award reduced backwages. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the respondent was an unfair labour practice and whether the award of full backwages was justified.
Final Decision
The High Court partly allowed the petition. It upheld the finding of unfair labour practice and the order of reinstatement with continuity of service. However, it modified the award of backwages from full to 50% for the period from termination (2.3.1992) to reinstatement (6.7.1996).
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- termination without inquiry
- reinstatement with continuity
- backwages not automatic
- burden of proof on employee for unemployment
