Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC), challenged the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 16/08/1996 in Revision (ULP) No.499/1992, which granted back wages to the respondent employee, Liladhar Ratan Tayde. The respondent was dismissed from service on 20/09/1984 for proved misconduct. His appeals were rejected. He filed Complaint (ULP) No.27/1987 before the Labour Court. During the pendency of the complaint, the respondent filed a purshis (undertaking) stating that if reinstated with continuity of service, he would give up all back wages. The Labour Court, by judgment dated 07/04/1992, accepted the purshis and allowed the complaint, directing reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages. The petitioner filed Revision (ULP) No.214/1992, and the respondent filed Revision (ULP) No.499/1992 before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court allowed the respondent's revision and set aside the Labour Court's order refusing back wages, granting back wages instead. The High Court noted that the respondent had been reinstated, retired on superannuation, and received all retiral benefits. The short point raised was whether the Industrial Court was justified in granting back wages despite the purshis. The High Court held that the Labour Court's order was without jurisdiction because the Labour Court under the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 does not have the power to order reinstatement. Therefore, the order was a nullity, and the purshis was not binding. The Industrial Court's order granting back wages was upheld. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Back Wages - Conditional Waiver - The employee filed a purshis before the Labour Court stating that if reinstated with continuity of service, he would give up all back wages. The Labour Court accepted the purshis and ordered reinstatement without back wages. The Industrial Court, in revision, set aside the Labour Court's order and granted back wages. The High Court held that the Labour Court's order was without jurisdiction as it did not have the power to grant reinstatement under the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, and therefore the purshis was not binding. The Industrial Court's order granting back wages was upheld. (Paras 1-5) B) Industrial Law - Jurisdiction - Labour Court - The Labour Court under the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 does not have the jurisdiction to order reinstatement. The order of the Labour Court dated 07/04/1992 was without jurisdiction and a nullity. Consequently, the purshis filed by the employee was also not binding. (Paras 3-5) C) Industrial Law - Revision - Industrial Court - The Industrial Court, in exercise of its revisional powers, can set aside an order passed without jurisdiction by the Labour Court. The Industrial Court's order granting back wages was justified as the earlier order was a nullity. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in granting back wages to the employee despite the employee having filed a purshis (undertaking) before the Labour Court waiving back wages in exchange for reinstatement with continuity of service.
Final Decision
Writ Petition dismissed. The Industrial Court's order granting back wages is upheld.
Law Points
- Back wages
- Reinstatement
- Waiver
- Conditional waiver
- Industrial Court jurisdiction
- Labour Court order without jurisdiction
- Section 30 of MRTU and PULP Act
- 1971
