Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, workers employed by respondent no. 1 (Shri Ram Mills), filed a complaint before the Industrial Court under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act), alleging that the respondent company had illegally closed certain departments and stopped providing work to them from 1 August 1996, thereby engaging in unfair labour practice. The respondent company, a textile mill, had been referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA), and a revival scheme was sanctioned on 31 October 1991 under section 18 of SICA. The scheme required the company to operate a specified number of spindles, looms, and process cloth, and to carry out modernisation. The petitioners contended that no modernisation was carried out; instead, various departments were gradually closed down, leading to illegal stoppage of work. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint, finding no evidence of unfair labour practice. The petitioners challenged this order by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the material facts and the Industrial Court's findings. It noted that the burden of proving unfair labour practice lay on the petitioners, who failed to adduce sufficient evidence to show that the closure of departments was illegal or that the stoppage of work was without justification. The court held that the Industrial Court's order was based on evidence and was not perverse, and therefore no interference was warranted under Article 226. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Closure of Departments - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) - The petitioners alleged that the respondent company illegally closed departments and stopped work, constituting unfair labour practice. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint, finding no evidence of unfair labour practice. The High Court upheld the order, holding that the findings were based on evidence and not perverse. (Paras 1-5) B) Industrial Law - Burden of Proof - Unfair Labour Practice - MRTU & PULP Act - The burden to prove unfair labour practice lies on the complainant. The petitioners failed to establish that the closure of departments was illegal or that the stoppage of work was without justification. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent company indulged in unfair labour practice by illegally closing departments and stopping work to the petitioners, and whether the Industrial Court's order dismissing the complaint was perverse.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order that there was no unfair labour practice.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- closure of departments
- burden of proof
- MRTU & PULP Act
- SICA scheme
- industrial dispute
