Case Note & Summary
The present petition was filed by Finlay Mills challenging an order dated 4.12.2002 passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay in Complaint (ULP) No.169 of 1996. The Industrial Court declared that the petitioners had engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5, 9, and 10 read with Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The court directed the petitioners to allow the respondent, Mrs. Supriya S. Ghugare, to resume duty in her original post with full back wages, continuity of service, and interest at 6% per annum. The respondent was a semi-clerk in the R&T department, later promoted to Investigator. She proceeded on maternity leave from June 1982 to August 1982. After the leave, she reported for duty but was not allowed to resume. The petitioners claimed that the respondent had abandoned her services, as she did not approach them or the representative union after a general strike. The Industrial Court found that the respondent had reported for duty and was not permitted to work, constituting an unfair labour practice. The High Court upheld the Industrial Court's order, dismissing the petition with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Abandonment of Service - Items 5, 9, 10 r/w Item 1, Schedule IV, MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Employee proceeded on maternity leave and reported for duty thereafter but was not allowed to resume - Employer claimed abandonment but failed to prove - Held that mere absence does not constitute abandonment and employer's action amounts to unfair labour practice (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent employee abandoned her service and whether the petitioners engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs, upholding the Industrial Court order.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Abandonment of service
- Maternity leave
- Reinstatement
- Back wages
- MRTU & PULP Act
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (04) 86
Writ Petition No.1074 of 2003
Mrs. Meena Doshi for the petitioners, Mr. S.N. Deshpande for the respondent
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Industrial Court declaring unfair labour practices and directing reinstatement with back wages.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to quash the Industrial Court order dated 4.12.2002.
Filing Reason
The petitioners claimed that the respondent had abandoned her services and that the Industrial Court erred in directing reinstatement with back wages.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court, Bombay, in Complaint (ULP) No.169 of 1996, declared that the petitioners engaged in unfair labour practices and directed reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.
Issues
Whether the respondent employee abandoned her service.
Whether the petitioners engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the respondent did not report for duty after the strike and abandoned her services.
The respondent contended that she reported for duty after maternity leave but was not allowed to resume work.
Ratio Decidendi
Mere absence from duty does not constitute abandonment of service; the employer must prove intention to abandon. In this case, the employee reported for duty after maternity leave and was not permitted to resume, which amounts to an unfair labour practice.
Judgment Excerpts
The present petition is filed challenging the order dt.4.12.2002 passed in Complaint (ULP) No.169 of 1996.
By the said order, the Industrial Court, Bombay has declared that the petitioners have engaged in unfair labour practices under Item 5, 9 and 10 r/w Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Procedural History
The respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No.169 of 1996 before the Industrial Court, Bombay, which passed an order on 4.12.2002 declaring unfair labour practices and directing reinstatement with back wages. The petitioners challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No.1074 of 2003 before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Schedule IV, Items 5, 9, 10, Item 1
