Case Note & Summary
The Bhandara District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. (petitioner) challenged the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court which set aside the retrenchment of its employee, Sayyad Ayub Haque (respondent no. 2), and directed reinstatement with continuity and backwages. The Labour Court, in Complaint (ULP) No. 82 of 2001 under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act (MRTU and PULP Act) read with Item 1 of Schedule IV, found that the employee had worked continuously from 22.08.2000 to 19.07.2001, completing 240 days of service, and that the retrenchment order dated 19.07.2001 violated Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) as no notice or compensation was given. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement with full backwages. The employer filed Revision (ULPA) No. 81 of 2007 under Section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act before the Industrial Court, which upheld the finding of illegal retrenchment but reduced backwages to 25% by judgment dated 31.03.2008. The employer then filed the present writ petition. The High Court noted that the finding of 240 days continuous service is a question of fact, and both lower courts had based their findings on salary vouchers (Exhs. 43 to 89) and attendance register (Exh. 14). The court found no perversity in these concurrent findings and held that the view taken by the courts below did not call for interference. The court also noted that the employee had been reinstated and was working. The writ petition was dismissed, and the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court were upheld.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Retrenchment - Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Continuous Service - The employee claimed retrenchment was illegal for non-compliance with Section 25F. The Labour Court found that the employee had worked continuously from 22.08.2000 to 19.07.2001, completing 240 days, based on salary vouchers (Exhs. 43 to 89) and attendance register (Exh. 14). The Industrial Court reduced backwages to 25%. The High Court held that the finding of 240 days continuous service is a question of fact, and the concurrent findings based on evidence were not perverse, hence no interference warranted. (Paras 3-4)
B) Industrial Law - Backwages - Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The Industrial Court reduced backwages to 25% in revision. The High Court did not disturb this reduction as the employee had not challenged it. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court and Industrial Court correctly held that the employee had completed 240 days of continuous service and that retrenchment was invalid for non-compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The orders passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court are upheld.
Law Points
- Retrenchment without compliance with Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act is invalid
- Finding of 240 days continuous service is a question of fact
- Concurrent findings of fact based on evidence not to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (09) 112
WRIT PETITION NO. 1532 OF 2009
Shri A.M.Ghare for petitioner, Shri V.K.Paliwal for Respondent No.2
The Bhandara District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, Bhandara
Member, Industrial Court, Bhandara and Shri Sayyad Ayub Haque
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging orders of Labour Court and Industrial Court setting aside retrenchment and ordering reinstatement with backwages.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner employer sought to quash the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court which set aside the retrenchment and directed reinstatement with continuity and backwages.
Filing Reason
The employer challenged the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and Industrial Court that the employee had completed 240 days of continuous service and that retrenchment was illegal for non-compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Previous Decisions
Labour Court allowed Complaint (ULP) No. 82 of 2001 on 08.08.2007, setting aside retrenchment and ordering reinstatement with full backwages. Industrial Court in Revision (ULPA) No. 81 of 2007 on 31.03.2008 reduced backwages to 25% but upheld the finding of illegal retrenchment.
Issues
Whether the employee had completed 240 days of continuous service preceding the date of retrenchment.
Whether the retrenchment was invalid for non-compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the employee had not turned up for duties after reinstatement.
Respondent argued that the employee had been reinstated and was working.
Ratio Decidendi
The finding of 240 days continuous service is a question of fact. Both lower courts recorded concurrent findings based on relevant and admissible evidence (salary vouchers and attendance register). There was no perversity in such findings. Non-compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act was undisputed. Hence, no interference in writ jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
The question as to whether the employee has completed 240 days continuous service preceding the date of his retrenchment is necessarily a question of fact.
Both the Courts below have recorded the finding that the complainant has worked continuously from 22.08.2000 to 19.07.2001 and had thus completed 240 days continuous service preceding the date of retrenchment.
The finding of fact is based upon the relevant and admissible evidence on record and there is no perversity in recording such findings brought to my notice by the petitioner.
Procedural History
The employee filed Complaint (ULP) No. 82 of 2001 before the Labour Court under Section 28 of MRTU and PULP Act. The Labour Court allowed the complaint on 08.08.2007, setting aside retrenchment and ordering reinstatement with full backwages. The employer filed Revision (ULPA) No. 81 of 2007 before the Industrial Court under Section 44 of MRTU and PULP Act. The Industrial Court reduced backwages to 25% on 31.03.2008. The employer then filed the present writ petition before the High Court on 14.08.2009, which was admitted and finally heard.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971: 28, 44, Schedule IV Item 1
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 25F
