Case Note & Summary
The judgment involves two cross writ petitions arising from an order of the 7th Labour Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No.236 of 1994. The employee, Atul Pansare, joined Hindustan Lever Ltd. on 10 October 1982 as an Instrumentation Mechanic. The company declared a lockout on 25 June 1988 which continued until 26 June 1989. During the lockout, the government intervened and the company offered a Social Security Rehabilitation Package (SSRP) Scheme to employees. Circulars dated 8 March 1989 and 11 April 1989 were sent to workers including the petitioner. After the lockout was lifted, employees were required to sign individual settlements which included clause 3 referring to the SSRP Scheme. The petitioner reported to work on 27 July 1989 after signing the individual settlement. Due to health problems, he applied for sick leave on 2 August 1989 and subsequently submitted a letter dated 12 August 1989 opting for the SSRP scheme. The company rejected his application on 6 August 1989 stating it was not possible to relieve him. Despite further requests on 7 August 1989 and 1 September 1989, the company rejected again on 9 September 1989. The petitioner then filed a complaint alleging unfair labour practice. The Labour Court held that the termination was illegal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages, or alternatively, payment of lumpsum compensation of Rs. 2 lacs excluding legal dues. Both parties challenged the order: the employee sought back wages and the employer sought to set aside the reinstatement. The High Court considered the issues of unfair labour practice, the validity of the SSRP scheme, and the appropriate relief. The court analyzed the evidence and found that the employee had not abandoned service but was denied the scheme. The court held that reinstatement with continuity of service was proper but back wages were not justified as the employee did not work during the period. The lumpsum compensation option was set aside as it was not a valid alternative to reinstatement. The court dismissed the employer's petition and partly allowed the employee's petition by deleting the lumpsum compensation option.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes - Unfair Labour Practice - Reinstatement - Section 30 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Employee challenged termination and denial of SSRP scheme - Labour Court found termination illegal and ordered reinstatement without back wages or lumpsum compensation - High Court upheld reinstatement but set aside lumpsum compensation option - Held that once termination is held illegal, reinstatement with continuity of service is proper, but back wages are not automatic and lumpsum compensation cannot be imposed as an alternative to reinstatement (Paras 1-43).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court's order directing reinstatement without back wages or lumpsum compensation of Rs. 2 lacs is legal and proper, and whether the employee is entitled to the SSRP scheme.
Final Decision
The High Court partly allowed the employee's petition (WP 2102/2006) by deleting the option of lumpsum compensation of Rs. 2 lacs and confirmed the reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages. The employer's petition (WP 2272/2006) was dismissed.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Reinstatement
- Back wages
- Lumpsum compensation
- Social Security Rehabilitation Package Scheme
- Individual settlement
- Lockout
- Jurisdiction of Labour Court
