Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an employee, filed a complaint alleging unfair labour practice. The Labour Court in Complaint ULP No. 30 of 1991 held that the employer was engaged in unfair labour practice under Item 1(b) of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U and P.U.L.P Act and directed reinstatement with effect from 14.08.1987 without backwages. The employer filed a revision before the Industrial Court, which allowed the revision and set aside the Labour Court's order. The employee then challenged the Industrial Court's order by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court noted that the employee was already working as a Laboratory Assistant and that the employer could terminate his service by following the provisions of labour laws. The Court disposed of the petition without going into the merits of the impugned order, stating that any termination shall be in accordance with the provisions of labour laws. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Item 1(b) of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act - Reinstatement - The Labour Court found the employer engaged in unfair labour practice and directed reinstatement without backwages. The Industrial Court allowed the employer's revision and set aside the order. The High Court disposed of the petition without going into merits, noting that the employee is already working and the employer may terminate service in accordance with labour laws. (Paras 1-3)
B) Industrial Disputes Act - Section 25F - Termination - Retrenchment - The Labour Court set aside termination on the ground of violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court held that any future termination must comply with applicable labour laws. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in setting aside the Labour Court's order of reinstatement and whether the employer can terminate the employee's service without following due process.
Final Decision
The High Court disposed of the writ petition without going into the merits of the impugned order, stating that the employee is already working and the employer may terminate his service by following the provisions of labour laws. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Item 1(b) of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act
- Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Reinstatement
- Termination in accordance with law
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (01) 75
WRIT PETITION NO. 6134 of 2004
Smt. R.D.Raskar for Petitioner, Shri Neeraj Patil for Respondent
Shri Surendra Wasudeorao Asare
The Industrial Court, Maharashtra (Amravati Bench) and Deputy Director of Health Services, Akola Circle, Akola
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Industrial Court which set aside the Labour Court's order of reinstatement.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (employee) sought to challenge the Industrial Court's order setting aside the Labour Court's direction of reinstatement.
Filing Reason
The Industrial Court allowed the employer's revision and set aside the Labour Court's order of reinstatement.
Previous Decisions
Labour Court in Complaint ULP No. 30 of 1991 granted declaration of unfair labour practice and directed reinstatement without backwages. Industrial Court in Revision (ULP) No. 59 of 2003 allowed the revision and set aside the Labour Court's order.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in setting aside the Labour Court's order of reinstatement.
Whether the employer can terminate the employee's service without following due process.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner-complainant is in service till today as a Laboratory Assistant.
The employer argued that the reinstatement was as a Laboratory Attendant (Class IV) and not as Laboratory Assistant (Class III).
Ratio Decidendi
Since the employee is already working, it is not necessary to examine the merits of the Industrial Court's order. The employer is at liberty to terminate the service in accordance with the provisions of labour laws.
Judgment Excerpts
In view of the fact that the complainant is already working at Labouratory Assistant till this date, it is always open for the employer to terminate his service by following the provisions of Labour Laws applicable.
Hence, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the order impugned in this petition, except the say that any termination shall be in accordance with the provisions of Labour Laws.
Procedural History
The Labour Court in Complaint ULP No. 30 of 1991 granted declaration of unfair labour practice and directed reinstatement without backwages. The employer filed Revision (ULP) No. 59 of 2003 before the Industrial Court, which allowed the revision and set aside the Labour Court's order. The employee then filed Writ Petition No. 6134 of 2004 before the Bombay High Court challenging the Industrial Court's order.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (M.R.T.U and P.U.L.P Act): Item 1(b) of Schedule IV
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 25F
