Acts Discussed:

• The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971
  • Item 1, Schedule IV: Unfair labour practices regarding dismissal of employees

1. Restoration of ULP Complaint After Dismissal

   • Para 1-2:
     The petitioner challenged his dismissal through Complaint (ULP) No. 23 of 1992 before the Labour Court at Solapur under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. After 19 years, the case was dismissed due to non-prosecution as the petitioner failed to lead evidence, allegedly not responding to his advocate's communications.

2. Restoration Application and Labour Court's Rejection

   • Para 3:
     The petitioner filed Misc. (ULP) No. 5 of 2011, seeking restoration of the complaint. However, the Labour Court rejected it, concluding that the petitioner had deliberately prolonged the case due to interim protection.

3. Industrial Court’s Dismissal of the Revision Petition

   • Para 4:
     The petitioner’s revision application before the Industrial Court, Revision (ULP) No. 31 of 2012, was also dismissed, leading to this writ petition. The respondent’s representative opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner had unduly delayed the case.

4. Petitioner’s Conduct and Consequences

   • Para 5-6:
     The court observed that the petitioner was responsible for the prolonged delay and dismissal of the complaint. However, the petitioner, having suffered for 13 years without employment, expressed willingness to forego back wages from the date of the dismissal.

5. Court’s Consideration for Restoration

   • Para 7-8:
     The court found that the petitioner should be allowed to test the legality of his dismissal and restored the complaint, balancing equities by depriving him of back wages from 2011 to the date of the order.

6. Restoration and Time-Bound Program for Evidence

   • Para 9-10:
     The impugned orders of the Labour Court (25th January 2011, 30th April 2012) and Industrial Court (22nd November 2013) were quashed. The complaint was restored, with the petitioner directed to lead evidence on 21st October 2024 and cooperate for cross-examination.

7. Completion of Proceedings by February 2025

   • Para 11:
     The Labour Court was directed to conclude the proceedings by 28th February 2025, with at least weekly hearings and the petitioner barred from seeking unnecessary adjournments. The interim relief order would not be revived.

8. Final Ruling

   • Para 12-13:
     The court ruled that the petitioner would not receive back wages for the period from 2011 to the present. The writ petition was partly allowed.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court emphasized the principle of granting a fair opportunity to the petitioner to challenge the dismissal despite his earlier conduct leading to the case's dismissal. Balancing the equities, the court restored the complaint but denied back wages for the period the petitioner remained out of employment after the complaint's dismissal.

Subjects:

Unfair Labour Practices, Dismissal, Restoration of Complaint

ULP, Labour Court, Dismissal in Default, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions Act, Back-Wages, Time-Bound Proceedings