Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Managing Director of Parner Taluka Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, challenged the judgment and order dated 28.02.1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, which allowed Revision (ULP) No.75/1992 preferred by the respondent employee. The respondent was appointed as a Supervisor in 1986. On 27.01.1987, he applied for the post of Assistant Security Officer, but one Mr. S.B. Supekar was appointed instead. The respondent confronted the Managing Director and abused him, leading to his suspension on 31.01.1987 with effect from 01.02.1987. After a domestic enquiry, he was dismissed from service by order dated 03.08.1987, made effective from 31.01.1987. The respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No.53/1987 before the Labour Court challenging his dismissal. The Labour Court dismissed the complaint. The respondent then filed Revision (ULP) No.75/1992 before the Industrial Court, which allowed the revision and set aside the dismissal, primarily on the ground that the dismissal was made effective retrospectively from 31.01.1987, which is illegal. The petitioner argued that the respondent had not specifically pleaded that the dismissal was retrospective, and therefore the Industrial Court could not have set aside the dismissal on that ground. The court held that although the respondent did not specifically plead the retrospective effect, the Labour Court had framed an issue regarding the legality and validity of the dismissal, and both parties led evidence on that issue. The Industrial Court was justified in considering the retrospective effect as part of the legality of the dismissal. The court further held that a dismissal made effective from a date prior to the order of dismissal is illegal and cannot be sustained. The petition was dismissed, and the Industrial Court's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Retrospective Dismissal - Legality - Dismissal of employee made effective from a date prior to the order of dismissal is illegal and cannot be sustained - The Industrial Court rightly set aside the dismissal on this ground even though not specifically pleaded, as the issue was framed and parties led evidence - Held that retrospective dismissal is per se illegal (Paras 5-7). B) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Section 4 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The employer's act of dismissing an employee with retrospective effect amounts to an unfair labour practice - The Labour Court and Industrial Court have jurisdiction to grant relief even if the specific ground is not pleaded, provided the issue is raised and evidence is led - Held that the Industrial Court's order was just and proper (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in setting aside the dismissal of the employee on the ground that the dismissal was made effective retrospectively, even though the employee had not specifically pleaded that ground.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 28.02.1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Revision (ULP) No.75/1992 is upheld. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Retrospective dismissal is illegal
- Industrial Court can set aside dismissal without specific pleading if issue is framed
- Domestic enquiry findings can be interfered with if perverse or violative of natural justice
