Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, VFC Industries Pvt. Ltd., challenged the judgment and order dated 25th April 2005 passed by the Industrial Court, which upheld the Labour Court's order dated 27th August 2004 allowing the complaint filed by the respondent, Balu Ganpat Sakpal, under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The respondent was employed as a peon at the petitioner's Mumbai office. The petitioner decided to shift its administrative and commercial office from Mumbai to its factory at Baska, District Panchmahal, and issued a notice on 25th August 1998 requiring employees to report for duty at the new location from 1st September 1998. Some employees complied or resigned, but the respondent neither resigned nor joined the transferred place. He claimed that on 1st September 1998, he reported for work at the Mumbai office and was orally told by the Managing Director that his services were terminated. He approached the union, which wrote a letter on 12th September 1998, and later sent a personal reminder on 2nd February 1999, both of which went unanswered. He filed a complaint on 17th February 1999 alleging unfair labour practice and seeking reinstatement with full back wages. The petitioner denied termination and contended that the respondent abandoned service. The Labour Court allowed the complaint, and the Industrial Court upheld it, directing reinstatement with back wages from 1st September 1998 to 22nd April 2002 and continuity of service. The High Court, in this writ petition, examined whether the termination was unlawful. It noted that the petitioner did not issue any transfer order to the respondent, nor did it prove that the respondent was asked to join the transferred place. The respondent's consistent stand was that he was terminated orally. The court held that the petitioner's failure to provide work or issue a transfer order amounted to termination of service, which was unlawful and constituted an unfair labour practice. The court upheld the finding of unfair labour practice but modified the back wages period to the date the respondent obtained alternative employment, i.e., 22nd April 2002. The petition was dismissed, and the order of the Industrial Court was confirmed with the modification that back wages were payable only up to 22nd April 2002.
Headnote
A) Unfair Labour Practice - Termination - Transfer of Office - Sections 28, 30 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The respondent employee was terminated orally when he reported for duty at the Mumbai office after the employer shifted the office to another location. The employer failed to provide work or issue a transfer order. The Labour Court and Industrial Court held that the termination was unlawful and amounted to unfair labour practice. The High Court upheld the finding, noting that the employer did not prove that the employee abandoned service or that his services were terminated for misconduct. (Paras 1-6) B) Reinstatement - Back Wages - Continuity of Service - Sections 28, 30 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court directed reinstatement with back wages from 1st September 1998 to 22nd April 2002 and continuity of service. The High Court modified the back wages period to 1st September 1998 to 22nd April 2002, as the respondent had obtained alternative employment thereafter. The court held that the respondent was entitled to back wages for the period he remained unemployed. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the respondent's service by the petitioner amounted to an unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, and whether the respondent was entitled to reinstatement with back wages.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the order of the Industrial Court directing reinstatement with continuity of service, but modified the back wages to be payable from 1st September 1998 to 22nd April 2002, the date the respondent obtained alternative employment.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Termination
- Transfer of office
- Reinstatement
- Back wages
- Burden of proof
