Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, the erstwhile Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB), challenged the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 31/01/2005 and 27/01/2005 in Complaint (ULP) No.69/2003 and 71/2003 respectively. The respondents, Vishwanath Shankarrao Kulkarni and Narayan Madhavrao Kamble, were the original complainants. They were working as Upper Division Clerks with the petitioner at its Nanded office. One Mr. M.A. Bashir was to retire on 01/02/1997. However, due to the respondents' negligence, they failed to notice his retirement date, and as a result, Mr. Bashir continued in employment until 26/02/1999. After this was noticed, the petitioner issued an order dated 31/03/2001 seeking to recover the excess salary paid to Mr. Bashir from the respondents. The Industrial Court held the petitioner guilty of unfair labour practices and directed it not to recover the amount as stated in the order dated 31/03/2001 and to refund the amount already recovered from the respondents. The High Court, by its order dated 09/06/2005, granted interim relief to the petitioners in respect of clause 4 of the Industrial Court's order. After hearing the learned advocates for both sides, the High Court dismissed both writ petitions, finding no perversity in the Industrial Court's order. The court noted that the respondents were not at fault for the excess payment and that recovery from them would be unjust. The judgment was delivered by Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge on 24/08/2016.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Recovery of Excess Payment - Item 9 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The petitioner sought to recover excess salary paid to the respondents due to their negligence in not noticing the retirement date of an employee. The Industrial Court held that recovery from employees for no fault of theirs would be unjust and amounts to unfair labour practice. The High Court upheld the order, dismissing the writ petitions. (Paras 1-5)
B) Industrial Law - Negligence of Employee - Recovery - The respondents, as Upper Division Clerks, failed to notice the retirement date of Mr. M.A. Bashir, resulting in excess salary payment. The petitioner issued a recovery order. The Industrial Court directed refund of amounts recovered. The High Court found no perversity in the Industrial Court's order and dismissed the petitions. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in holding the petitioner guilty of unfair labour practice and directing refund of amounts recovered from the respondents on account of excess salary paid due to their negligence?
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Recovery of excess payment
- Negligence of employee
- Item 9 Schedule IV MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- No fault of employee
- Refund of amount recovered
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (08) 16
Writ Petition No.3922 of 2005 and Writ Petition No.3923 of 2005
Mr. S.M. Godsay for the petitioners, Mr. S.B. Bhapkar for the respondents
The Superintending Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Nanded; The Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Nanded; The Chief Engineer (First Appellate Authority), Beed Zone
Vishwanath S/o Shankarrao Kulkarni; Narayan Madhavrao Kamble
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging the judgment of the Industrial Court holding the petitioner guilty of unfair labour practice and directing refund of amounts recovered from the respondents.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to set aside the Industrial Court's order dated 31/01/2005 and 27/01/2005 in Complaint (ULP) No.69/2003 and 71/2003 respectively.
Filing Reason
The petitioner challenged the Industrial Court's order that held them guilty of unfair labour practice for recovering excess salary paid to an employee due to the respondents' negligence.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court, by judgment dated 31/01/2005 and 27/01/2005, held the petitioner guilty of unfair labour practice and directed not to recover the amount as per order dated 31/03/2001 and to refund the amount already recovered.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in holding the petitioner guilty of unfair labour practice?
Whether the direction to refund the amount recovered from the respondents is sustainable?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the respondents were negligent in not noticing the retirement date of Mr. M.A. Bashir, resulting in excess salary payment, and thus recovery was justified.
The respondents contended that the recovery was unjust as they were not at fault and the Industrial Court correctly held it as unfair labour practice.
Ratio Decidendi
Recovery of excess salary paid to an employee due to the negligence of other employees, when the employees were not at fault, amounts to unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The Industrial Court's order directing refund of such recovered amounts is justified.
Judgment Excerpts
By the judgment of the Industrial Court, the petitioner is held guilty of unfair labour practices and has been directed not to recover the amount as stated in the order dated 31/03/2001 and refund the amount to the extent it has been recovered from the respondents.
It is not in dispute that both the respondents herein were working as Upper Division Clerks with the petitioner at its office at Nanded.
Procedural History
The respondents filed complaints (ULP) No.69/2003 and 71/2003 before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court passed judgment on 31/01/2005 and 27/01/2005 respectively, holding the petitioner guilty of unfair labour practice and directing refund. The petitioner filed writ petitions before the High Court on 09/06/2005, which granted interim relief. After hearing, the High Court dismissed the petitions on 24/08/2016.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Item 9 of Schedule IV
