Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Bhagwandas Shankerlal Rathi, filed a complaint under Section 28 read with Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act), alleging that the respondents, the General Manager of Model Mills Nagpur and the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of National Textile Corporation (Maharashtra North) Ltd., had terminated his services as an unfair labour practice. The petitioner claimed that he was employed as a Departmental Assistant Grade II since 1967, initially as an apprentice at Model Mills, and later confirmed. He contended that Model Mills was taken over by the National Textile Corporation (NTC) and that he was governed by the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (BIR Act). The Labour Court dismissed the complaint, holding that the petitioner failed to prove that the respondents were his employers and that the termination was not by the respondents but by the principal employer (NTC) due to closure of the unit. The Industrial Court upheld this decision in Revision (ULP) No.211 of 2011. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the factual matrix and found that the petitioner had not discharged the burden of proving the employer-employee relationship with the respondents. The court noted that the petitioner's appointment was by Model Mills, and after the takeover by NTC, the respondents were not the actual employers. The termination was effected by NTC due to closure, not by the respondents. The court held that the findings of the Labour Court and Industrial Court were based on evidence and did not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed, and the judgment of the Industrial Court was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Termination - Item 1 of Schedule IV, MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 - The petitioner alleged termination by the respondent employer as an unfair labour practice. The Labour Court and Industrial Court found that the termination was not by the employer but by the principal employer (NTC) due to closure of the unit, and the petitioner failed to prove that the respondents were his employers. Held that the complaint was rightly dismissed as the petitioner did not establish the employer-employee relationship with the respondents (Paras 1-10). B) Industrial Law - Employee Status - Burden of Proof - Section 3(13) of BIR Act, 1946 - The petitioner claimed to be an employee under the BIR Act, but the courts below held that he failed to discharge the burden of proving that the respondents were his employers. The evidence showed that the petitioner was appointed by Model Mills and later absorbed by NTC, and the respondents were not the actual employers. Held that the burden lies on the complainant to prove the employer-employee relationship (Paras 2-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the petitioner's services amounted to an unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, and whether the petitioner was an 'employee' within the meaning of the Act.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the judgments of the Labour Court and Industrial Court. The court found no merit in the petition and confirmed that the petitioner failed to prove the employer-employee relationship with the respondents.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Termination by employer
- Burden of proof
- Employee status
- MRTU and PULP Act
- Bombay Industrial Relations Act
