Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Val Colour Arts and its proprietor Mr. Valentine D'mello (employer), challenged the judgments of the First Labour Court, Mumbai, and the Industrial Court, Mumbai, which directed reinstatement of the respondent, Mr. Sandesh Ramesh Bhosle (employee), with continuity of service and 50% back wages. The employee claimed he was employed as a site supervisor from 12 June 1999 on a monthly salary of Rs.5,000/- and was orally terminated without any reason on 9 April 2003, which he alleged constituted unfair labour practice under Items (a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The employer contended that the employee was not regularly employed but engaged for specific site contracts, and that being a site supervisor, he was not a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court found that the employee was a workman and that the termination was illegal, directing reinstatement with 50% back wages. The Industrial Court upheld this in revision. The High Court, in its judgment dated 7 August 2014, dismissed the writ petition, holding that the findings of fact by the lower courts were based on evidence and not perverse. The court noted that the employer failed to prove that the employee had abandoned service or that the termination was for any valid reason. The court also held that the employee, as a site supervisor, fell within the definition of 'workman' as his duties were not managerial or supervisory in the sense of having power to appoint or discharge other employees. The High Court affirmed the orders of reinstatement with continuity and 50% back wages, finding no interference warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Headnote
A) Unfair Labour Practice - Oral Termination - Items (a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The employer orally terminated the employee without any notice or reason after four years of service. The Labour Court and Industrial Court held that such termination amounts to unfair labour practice. The High Court upheld the findings, noting that the employer failed to prove that the termination was for any valid reason or that the employee was not a workman. (Paras 1-10) B) Definition of Workman - Site Supervisor - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(s) - The employee was designated as 'site supervisor' and performed supervisory duties. The employer contended that the employee was not a workman. The courts below held that the employee was a workman as he was mainly doing manual or clerical work. The High Court affirmed, stating that the nature of duties and the fact that the employee was not vested with any power of appointment or discharge of other employees indicated he was a workman. (Paras 11-15) C) Burden of Proof - Termination - Unfair Labour Practice - The employer alleged that the employee abandoned service, but failed to lead any evidence. The Labour Court correctly placed the burden on the employer to justify the termination. The High Court held that once the employee proves employment and termination, the burden shifts to the employer to show that the termination was not unfair. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the employee by oral order without assigning any reasons constitutes unfair labour practice under the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, and whether the employee is a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court directing reinstatement of the employee with continuity of service and 50% back wages.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- oral termination
- burden of proof on employer
- reinstatement with back wages
- definition of workman
- site supervisor as workman
