Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Satish Motors Limited, challenged an order of the Labour Court directing it to deposit three months' wages in a complaint filed by the respondent workman under Section 28(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act). The respondent alleged that he was orally terminated from employment on 20/08/2003 after working since 1991. The petitioner filed a written say supported by an affidavit categorically denying any termination, stating that the respondent had stopped reporting for duty from 20/08/2003 and had rushed to court to evade disciplinary action. The Labour Court, without considering this denial, directed the petitioner to deposit three months' wages as interim relief under Section 30(2) of the Act. The High Court examined whether a cause of action survives for the Labour Court to exercise jurisdiction under Item 1 of Schedule IV when the employer denies termination by affidavit. The Court held that the very basis of the complaint is the allegation of termination; if the employer unequivocally states that there was no termination, the complaint becomes infructuous. The Labour Court cannot proceed to adjudicate a complaint where the foundational fact of termination is disputed and denied by the employer on oath. The Court set aside the Labour Court's order and directed that the complaint be dismissed as infructuous, with liberty to the respondent to pursue other remedies if available.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Termination - Item 1 of Schedule IV, MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 - Cause of Action - The issue was whether a cause of action survives for the Labour Court to proceed with a complaint of unfair termination when the employer categorically denies any termination by an affidavit. The Court held that if the employer states on oath that there was no termination, the complaint becomes infructuous and the Labour Court cannot proceed further. (Paras 2, 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a cause of action would survive for the Labour Court to exercise jurisdiction under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, after the respondent employer declares by an affidavit/written say before the Labour Court that there is no oral termination or termination of any kind or that the complainant is not terminated.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Labour Court's order dated 02/09/2003, and directed that the complaint (ULP) No.135/2003 be dismissed as infructuous. The respondent was given liberty to pursue other remedies if available.
Law Points
- Cause of action for unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act
- 1971 does not survive if employer denies termination by affidavit
- Labour Court cannot proceed with complaint if employer states no termination occurred
- Employer's denial of termination renders complaint infructuous
