Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Larsen and Toubro Grahak Sahakari Sanstha Maryadeet, a consumer cooperative society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, providing services to employees of M/s Larsen & Toubro Limited, engaged the first respondent, Tanaji Kashinath Vishwe, as a vendor with effect from 17.7.1979. The respondent was a case of chronic absenteeism and remained absent without leave or intimation from 27.7.1988. Consequently, the petitioner terminated his services without holding any domestic inquiry. The respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No.5/1990 before the 9th Labour Court at Mumbai under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (the Act), alleging unfair labour practice. The Labour Court, by judgment dated 3.12.1994, allowed the complaint and directed reinstatement with full back wages. The petitioner filed Revision Application (ULP) No.1/1995 before the Industrial Court at Mumbai under Section 44 of the Act, which was dismissed on 5.8.1996. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The High Court considered whether the termination without inquiry constituted an unfair labour practice. The petitioner argued that the respondent was a chronic absentee and that the Labour Court erred in ordering reinstatement with back wages. The respondent contended that the termination was illegal as no inquiry was held. The High Court held that the employer failed to prove the alleged absenteeism through a proper domestic inquiry or by leading evidence before the Labour Court. The concurrent findings of the Labour Court and Industrial Court were not perverse and did not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed, and the order of reinstatement with full back wages was upheld.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Termination Without Inquiry - Section 44 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The petitioner, a consumer cooperative society, terminated the services of the respondent, a vendor, for chronic absenteeism without conducting a domestic inquiry. The Labour Court and Industrial Court held that the termination was illegal and amounted to an unfair labour practice. The High Court upheld the findings, noting that the employer failed to prove the alleged absenteeism through a proper inquiry or by leading evidence before the Labour Court. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-10) B) Labour Law - Reinstatement with Back Wages - Chronic Absenteeism - Burden of Proof - The respondent remained absent from 27.7.1988 without leave or intimation. The employer did not hold any inquiry and merely issued a letter of termination. The Labour Court found that the employer failed to discharge the burden of proving that the absenteeism was willful or unauthorized. The Industrial Court confirmed the order of reinstatement with full back wages. The High Court found no perversity in the concurrent findings and dismissed the writ petition. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the respondent-vendor by the petitioner-society without holding a proper domestic inquiry constituted an unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, and whether the Labour Court and Industrial Court correctly ordered reinstatement with full back wages.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court directing reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- termination without inquiry
- chronic absenteeism
- burden of proof on employer
- reinstatement with back wages
- Section 44 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act
- 1971
