Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ravindra Gopal Shinde, was employed as a helper with Kohinoor Mills Company Limited. On 18th October 1983, the management of the cotton textile undertakings of the company was vested in the National Textile Corporation (South Maharashtra) Limited under the Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983. Subsequently, on 27th June 1995, the Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Ordinance, 1995 was promulgated, later replaced by the Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1995, which provided for the continuation of service of workmen employed from 18th October 1983. The petitioner contended that his services were never terminated and that he was not provided work or paid salary after the textile strike which began on 18th January 1982. He claimed that he had offered himself for work from 1st January 1996 but was not assigned any work. The petitioner filed a complaint of unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, which was dismissed by the Industrial Court on 27th March 2003. The defence of the National Textile Corporation was that the services of all employees of the erstwhile company stood terminated or were deemed to have been retrenched on the eve of the take over under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They argued that the petitioner's refusal of work on 18th January 1982 by the erstwhile company resulted in termination of his services, and his remedy lay against the erstwhile employer. The High Court, in its oral order, upheld the Industrial Court's decision, finding that the petitioner's services had terminated prior to the vesting of the undertaking, and therefore no unfair labour practice was established.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Termination of Service - Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The petitioner alleged that his services were not terminated and he was not provided work after nationalisation. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint. The High Court upheld the dismissal, finding that the petitioner's services stood terminated prior to the vesting of the undertaking in the National Textile Corporation, and thus there was no unfair labour practice. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in dismissing the complaint of unfair labour practices filed by the petitioner under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Industrial Court.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Termination of service
- Nationalisation
- Continuity of service
- Burden of proof
