Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Raju Purushottam Warurkar, was employed as a printer with the respondent firm, Bokey Printers, from 1985, with confirmation in 1987. On 5 August 2002, a notice alleging misconduct was served on him, but before he could respond, a termination notice dated 28 August 2002 was issued, purportedly as retrenchment under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner challenged the termination before the Labour Court under Section 28 read with Items 1(a), (c), (d), (e), and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act), seeking reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. The Labour Court, by order dated 2 August 2010, partly allowed the complaint, declaring that the respondent engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 1(a), (b), (d), and (f) of Schedule IV, and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and 30% back wages from the date of termination till reinstatement. The respondent challenged this order in revision before the Industrial Court at Amravati under Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Industrial Court, by order dated 4 August 2016, quashed and set aside the Labour Court's order and remanded the matter for fresh decision. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging the revisional order. The High Court examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 44, noting that it is limited and akin to a court of revision under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own findings unless the Labour Court's findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The Industrial Court's order did not find any perversity or jurisdictional error; instead, it merely disagreed with the Labour Court's appreciation of evidence. The High Court held that the Industrial Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction and that the Labour Court's findings were based on evidence and not perverse. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Industrial Court's order, and restored the Labour Court's order dated 2 August 2010.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practices - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 44 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The revisional court under Section 44 has limited jurisdiction akin to a court of revision under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own findings unless the Labour Court's findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The Industrial Court's order remanding the matter without such finding was held to be beyond its revisional power. (Paras 4-6) B) Industrial Law - Termination of Service - Retrenchment - Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The Labour Court found that the termination of the petitioner, who had worked for 17 years, was not a valid retrenchment as the employer failed to comply with Section 25F and the termination was in fact a dismissal without proper inquiry. The revisional court's interference was unjustified as the Labour Court's findings were based on evidence. (Paras 3, 6) C) Industrial Law - Reinstatement and Back Wages - Labour Court's Discretion - The Labour Court, after finding unfair labour practices, ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and 30% back wages. The revisional court's order to remand for fresh decision was set aside, and the Labour Court's order was restored. (Paras 3, 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, could set aside the Labour Court's order and remand the matter for fresh decision without finding any error of law or jurisdiction or perversity in the findings of fact.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Industrial Court's order dated 04/08/2016, and restored the Labour Court's order dated 02/08/2010. Rule made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Revisional jurisdiction under Section 44 of MRTU & PULP Act is limited to correcting errors of law or jurisdiction
- not to reappreciate evidence
- Revisional court cannot set aside findings of fact unless perverse or unsupported by evidence
- Remand order without finding of perversity or jurisdictional error is beyond revisional power
