Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Jagdish s/o Karuji Bombarde, was a daily wage employee of the Municipal Council, Tumsar. He was appointed in February 1997, transferred to the Tree Conservation Department, and issued an appointment order on 4.10.1997 on a temporary basis with a monthly pay scale of Rs. 250-940 and Dearness Allowance. He was later deputed to the Octroi Department. His services were terminated on 9.7.2001. The employee filed Complaint 5 of 2003 under Sections 28 and 30 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) challenging his termination. The Labour Court held the termination illegal, but instead of ordering reinstatement and back wages, awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000. The Industrial Court confirmed this finding. Aggrieved, the employee filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court considered the employee's service tenure of about 4 years and his status as a daily wager. The court noted that the employee had not worked continuously for a long period and that the compensation of Rs. 25,000 was adequate in the circumstances. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the decisions of the Labour Court and Industrial Court.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Compensation in lieu of Reinstatement - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Sections 28, 30 - Employee's termination held illegal by Labour Court and Industrial Court - Courts refused reinstatement and back wages, awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000 - Employee challenged adequacy of compensation - Held that considering the employee worked only for about 4 years and was a daily wager, compensation of Rs. 25,000 is just and proper - No interference warranted under Articles 226 and 227 (Paras 3-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court and Industrial Court were justified in refusing reinstatement and back wages and awarding compensation of Rs. 25,000 instead, for an employee whose termination was held illegal.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the award of compensation of Rs. 25,000 in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.
Law Points
- Compensation in lieu of reinstatement
- Daily wage employee
- Unfair labour practice
- Adequacy of compensation
- MRTU & PULP Act
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (10) 155
Writ Petition 7726 of 2017 with Writ Petition 596 of 2018
Shri Alok Upasni for petitioner; Shri A.S. Deshpande for respondent 1; Smt. S.V. Kolhe, AGP for respondent 2
Jagdish s/o. Karuji Bombarde
The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Tumsar; The Collector, Bhandara
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the refusal of reinstatement and back wages and grant of compensation of Rs. 25,000 by Labour Court and Industrial Court.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought reinstatement with back wages instead of compensation of Rs. 25,000.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's termination was held illegal by Labour Court, but instead of reinstatement and back wages, compensation of Rs. 25,000 was awarded, which was confirmed by Industrial Court.
Previous Decisions
Labour Court held termination illegal and awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000; Industrial Court confirmed the finding.
Issues
Whether the Labour Court and Industrial Court were justified in refusing reinstatement and back wages and awarding compensation of Rs. 25,000 instead.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that since termination was illegal, he was entitled to reinstatement with back wages.
Respondents supported the compensation award as adequate.
Ratio Decidendi
For a daily wage employee who worked only for about 4 years, compensation of Rs. 25,000 is just and proper in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, and no interference is warranted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner employee, whose termination is held illegal by the Labour Court, which finding is confirmed by the Industrial Court, is invoking writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the refusal of the relief of the reinstatement and back wages and grant of compensation of Rs. 25,000 in lieu thereof.
The employee was appointed as a daily wage employee in the Public Works Department of respondent 1 in February 1997 and on 5.8.1997 was transferred to the Tree Conservation Department.
The employee was issued appointment order dated 4.10.1997. The appointment was temporary on monthly pay scale of Rs. 250 – 940/ and permissible Dearness Allowance.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed Complaint 5 of 2003 under Sections 28 and 30 of MRTU & PULP Act challenging termination dated 9.7.2001. Labour Court held termination illegal and awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000. Industrial Court confirmed the finding. Petitioner filed Writ Petition 7726 of 2017 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: 28, 30
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
