Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pallavi Shriram Disle, was employed as a Bus Conductor with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC). A charge sheet dated 10.6.2010 was issued against her alleging misappropriation by issuing lesser luggage tickets disproportionate to the weight of luggage. After an enquiry, the charges were held proved, and a second show cause notice dated 29.11.2010 was served proposing dismissal from service. The petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No. 58 of 2010 before the Labour Court, Latur under Section 28(1) read with items 1(a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act), challenging the disciplinary action as an unfair labour practice. She also filed an application for interim relief under Section 30(2) of the Act. The Labour Court, by order dated 11.1.2012, allowed the interim application and stayed the second show cause notice, preventing MSRTC from awarding any punishment. MSRTC challenged this interim order by filing Revision (ULP) No. 24 of 2012 before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court, by judgment and order dated 10.10.2013, allowed the revision and set aside the interim order, thereby rejecting the application for interim relief. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner argued that the evidence in the enquiry was insufficient as the bus passengers were not examined, and that she had seven dependents solely reliant on her income. The court considered whether the Industrial Court was justified in interfering with the Labour Court's interim order. The court noted that the Labour Court had exercised its discretion to grant interim relief to protect the petitioner from dismissal pending final adjudication, and that the Industrial Court had not found the Labour Court's order to be perverse or without jurisdiction. The court held that the balance of convenience was in favor of the petitioner, who would suffer irreparable loss if dismissed, and that the Industrial Court ought to have considered these factors. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, the Industrial Court's order was quashed and set aside, and the Labour Court's interim order was restored. The court directed the Labour Court to expedite the final hearing of the complaint.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Interim Relief - Section 30(2) of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Labour Court granted interim stay of second show cause notice and proposed dismissal pending complaint - Industrial Court in revision set aside the interim order - Held that the Industrial Court ought to have considered the balance of convenience and irreparable loss to the employee, who had seven dependents and no other source of income, and that the Labour Court's order was not perverse or without jurisdiction (Paras 1-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in setting aside the interim order of the Labour Court which stayed the second show cause notice and proposed punishment of dismissal pending final adjudication of the complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 10.10.2013 passed by the Industrial Court in Revision (ULP) No.24 of 2012 is quashed and set aside. The order dated 11.1.2012 passed by the Labour Court, Latur below Exhibit U-2 in Complaint (ULP) No.58 of 2010 is restored. The Labour Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the complaint and decide it as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months from the date of this order.
Law Points
- Interim relief under Section 30(2) of MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable loss
- Prima facie case
- Disciplinary proceedings
- Enquiry report
- Second show cause notice
