Case Note & Summary
The employer, a cooperative sugar factory, dismissed a permanent workman for absenteeism and other misconduct after an ex-parte domestic enquiry proven fair by the Labour Court. The workman had remained absent from 21.3.1990 without permission; a chargesheet dated 27.8.1990 levelled charges of absence without leave, continuous absence for more than 10 days, disobedience, and insubordination under Standing Order 23, which lists major misconducts. The enquiry officer found the charges proved, and the dismissal order was passed on 31.12.1990. The workman filed Complaint (ULP) No.31 of 1991 under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act before the Labour Court at Satara, seeking reinstatement with backwages, though later he relinquished reinstatement and sought compensation. The Labour Court, after recording evidence of the employer’s Labour Officer and the workman, dismissed the complaint, holding the enquiry fair, findings not perverse, and punishment not shockingly disproportionate. The workman then filed a revision under section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act before the Industrial Court, which allowed the revision in a surprising move. The Industrial Court held that the employer had committed an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV, despite the complaint being under Item 1, and reasoned that the misconduct was merely ‘absence without leave’ covered by Standing Order 25, which only permits minor punishments like censure or fine, not dismissal. Accordingly, it awarded reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages. Aggrieved, the employer filed Writ Petition No.1842 of 2001 before the Bombay High Court, contending that the chargesheet clearly invoked Standing Order 23 for habitual absence and other misconducts, and that the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to grant relief under a different item of Schedule IV. The High Court, per Smt. Nishita Mhatre J., examined the chargesheet and the standing orders. It found that the workman was chargesheeted for misconducts under Standing Order 23, including ‘habitual absence without leave or absence without leave for more than 10 consecutive days’ as per Standing Order 23(f), and for disobedience and insubordination. The court noted that punishment for such misconduct under Standing Order 24 includes dismissal. The Industrial Court had patently erred by conflating the charges with minor absence under Standing Order 25 and by invoking Item 9 when the complaint was under Item 1. The High Court set aside the Industrial Court’s order, holding it legally unsustainable, and restored the Labour Court’s dismissal of the complaint. The petition was allowed, rule made absolute, with no order as to costs. The judgment reinforces that an employer can dismiss a worker for proven major misconduct under applicable standing orders, and revisional courts cannot travel beyond the pleaded case.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Misconduct and Dismissal - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Items 1 and 9 of Schedule IV, Section 44 - The workman was chargesheeted for absenteeism for more than 10 consecutive days and other misconduct under Standing Order 23 of the employer, which allows dismissal as punishment - The Industrial Court erroneously held that Standing Order 25 applied, which permits only minor punishments, and declared unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV, though complaint was filed under Item 1 - Held, the Industrial Court's order was set aside as the chargesheet clearly alleged misconduct under Standing Order 23, and the punishment of dismissal was proportionate (Paras 3-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court's order granting reinstatement with backwages by invoking Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, despite the complaint being under Item 1 and the misconduct being under Standing Order 23, was legally sustainable?
Final Decision
Petition allowed; order of Industrial Court set aside; rule made absolute; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Absence without leave for more than 10 consecutive days constitutes misconduct under Standing Order 23
- not merely absence without sufficient cause under Standing Order 25
- punishment of dismissal is permissible under Standing Order 24 for misconduct under Standing Order 23
- Industrial Court cannot grant relief under a different item of Schedule IV than the one pleaded
- revision under section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act must be exercised within the scope of the complaint.
