Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Samaruram B. Yadav, was employed as a driver with respondent no.1, a partnership firm engaged in supplying materials to the Government. He earned Rs.1000 per month. The respondent had about 25 drivers and 40 total employees. The employer abruptly terminated the services of most drivers by obtaining their signatures on prepared papers. When the petitioner's turn came, he refused to sign and was told his services were not required. He was not allowed to report for duty from the next day. He approached the Government Labour Officer, conciliation meetings were held, and ultimately consideration was paid. He then filed Complaint (ULP) No.201 of 1991 before the Labour Court, alleging unfair labour practice. The employer filed a written statement at Exh.63. The Labour Court, by judgment dated 28-9-1994, allowed the complaint and directed reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service from 12-6-1991. The employer filed Revision Application No.46 of 1995 before the Industrial Court, which by judgment dated 14-9-1995 allowed the revision and quashed the Labour Court's order. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition. The High Court noted that the Industrial Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and substituting its own findings without finding that the Labour Court's findings were perverse. The High Court held that the termination was illegal and amounted to an unfair labour practice. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Industrial Court's order, and restored the Labour Court's order of reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Termination - Sections 5, 30, 44 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The petitioner-employee, a driver, was terminated without notice and without following due process. The Labour Court found the termination to be an unfair labour practice and ordered reinstatement with full backwages. The Industrial Court in revision quashed the order. The High Court held that the Industrial Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and substituting its own findings without finding perversity. The High Court restored the Labour Court's order, holding that the termination was illegal and amounted to unfair labour practice. (Paras 1-5) B) Industrial Law - Reinstatement - Backwages - Continuity of Service - Sections 30, 44 of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The Labour Court's order of reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service was upheld by the High Court. The High Court noted that the employer failed to prove that the petitioner voluntarily left service or that there was any valid reason for termination. The Industrial Court's finding that the petitioner abandoned service was based on no evidence and was perverse. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court erred in quashing the Labour Court's order of reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service, and whether the termination of the petitioner-employee amounted to an unfair labour practice under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Industrial Court dated 14-9-1995, and restored the order of the Labour Court dated 28-9-1994 directing reinstatement of the petitioner with full backwages and continuity of service with effect from 12-6-1991.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- termination without notice
- burden of proof on employer
- jurisdiction of Industrial Court in revision
- reinstatement with backwages
- MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
