Case Note & Summary
These are six writ petitions filed by the Divisional Controller of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) challenging the common order dated 8.7.2015 of the Industrial Court, Latur. The Industrial Court had allowed the complaints filed by the respondent employees under the MRTU and PULP Act, declaring unfair labour practice under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV and setting aside the punishment of reduction of one increment imposed on them. The employees had participated in a strike on 28.11.2000. After domestic enquiries, they were found guilty of misconduct and initially punished with reduction in basic pay by two stages, which was reduced to one stage by the appellate authority. The Industrial Court, while allowing the complaints, drew an adverse inference from the non-production of minutes of a meeting dated 28.11.2000 between the Divisional Controller and the union, and also referred to the dismissal of an earlier complaint (ULP No.216/2000) filed by the employer seeking declaration of the strike as illegal. The petitioner argued that the minutes did not exist or were not binding, the punishment was not disproportionate, and the Industrial Court exceeded its jurisdiction. The respondents contended the strike was peaceful and the punishment was harsh. The High Court noted that the earlier complaint under Schedule III was correctly dismissed because no reference under Section 25 had been made to the Labour Court, and this position is settled. The judgment as provided does not record a final dispositive order on the writ petitions.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Illegal Strike - Declaration Under Section 25 - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Section 25 - Complaint (ULP) No.216/2000 filed by employer under Schedule III seeking declaration that strike was illegal was dismissed by the Industrial Court on the ground that no reference was made to Labour Court under Section 25. This position is no longer res integra; the Industrial Court cannot declare a strike illegal unless a reference under Section 25 is made and determined by the Labour Court. The Industrial Court correctly dismissed the complaint as it lacked jurisdiction. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court erred in setting aside the punishment of reduction of one increment and declaring unfair labour practice against the employer, and whether the non-production of minutes of meeting dated 28.11.2000 entitled the Industrial Court to draw an adverse inference and exonerate the employees, and whether the earlier dismissal of Complaint (ULP) No.216/2000 had any bearing on the case.
Law Points
- Declaration under Section 25 of MRTU & PULP Act is a prerequisite for Industrial Court to declare a strike illegal
- Adverse inference from non-production of documents in custody of employer
- Proportionality of punishment in disciplinary proceedings.
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (02) 1
Writ Petition Nos. 427 of 2016, 428 of 2016, 429 of 2016, 430 of 2016, 431 of 2016, 432 of 2016
D.S. Bagul for petitioners, S.B. Gastagar for respondents
Vibhag Niyantrak (Divisional Controller) Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Latur Division, Latur
Kamalakar Harishchandra Somwanshi, Shafi Ahemad Iftekhar Ahemad Patel, Shivaji Rajaram Mule, Angad Shabhusing Chavan, Ramesh Dnyannoba Dhepe, Sanjay Bhagwantrao Gaikwad
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging Industrial Court order allowing employee complaints under MRTU & PULP Act and setting aside disciplinary punishment.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (MSRTC) sought to quash and set aside the Industrial Court's judgment and order dated 8.7.2015 and to restore the punishment of reduction in basic pay.
Filing Reason
The Industrial Court allowed the complaints, declared unfair labour practice against the employer, and set aside the punishment of reduction of one increment.
Previous Decisions
Industrial Court, Latur by order dated 8.7.2015 allowed the complaints in Complaint (ULP) Nos.180/2011, 175/2011, 179/2011, 177/2011, 178/2011 and 176/2011, setting aside the punishment orders. Earlier, Complaint (ULP) No.216/2000 filed by employer seeking declaration of illegal strike was dismissed on 10.8.2007.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court erred in setting aside the punishment of reduction of one increment on the ground of proportionality and adverse inference from non-production of minutes of meeting dated 28.11.2000.
Whether the Industrial Court's reliance on the dismissal of Complaint (ULP) No.216/2000 was justified.
Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed in a domestic enquiry.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: The strike was illegal; proper domestic enquiry conducted; no such minutes existed or were binding; the Divisional Controller lacked authority to bind the corporation; punishment not disproportionate; Industrial Court cannot interfere unless shockingly disproportionate; adverse inference unwarranted.
Respondent: The strike was peaceful and caused no loss; minutes existed and were in petitioner's custody leading to adverse inference; reduction in pay is a major punishment disproportionate to the act; a warning would suffice; Industrial Court correctly interfered.
Judgment Excerpts
The Industrial Court has dismissed the said complaint on the ground that unless a declaration u/s 25 of the 1971 Act is not sought and not made by the Labour Court, the Industrial Court does not have jurisdiction. This issue is no longer resintegra.
Procedural History
On 28.11.2000, employees of MSRTC participated in a strike. Chargesheet was issued on 23.7.2001. Domestic enquiries were conducted and respondents were found guilty. A second show cause notice was issued on 21.8.2010 proposing reduction of basic pay by two stages. By order dated 31.8.2010, punishment of reduction by two stages was imposed. The appellate authority modified the punishment to reduction by one stage on 4.5.2011. Meanwhile, Complaint (ULP) No.216/2000 filed by the employer seeking declaration of illegal strike was dismissed by the Industrial Court on 10.8.2007. Employees filed complaints before the Industrial Court in 2011. The Industrial Court allowed the complaints on 8.7.2015, setting aside the punishment. The present writ petitions were filed in 2016 and heard on 3.2.2016.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Section 25, Schedule IV Items 9 and 10, Schedule III Items 1(a), 1(b), 5 and 6
