Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Loni Vyankanath Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., filed three writ petitions challenging the judgment and order dated 17.12.2013 of the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) Nos. 20, 19, and 18 of 2011, and the judgment dated 21.1.2015 of the Industrial Court in Revision (ULP) Nos. 10, 11, and 12 of 2014. The respondents, Dhanraj Dada Kakde, Sachin Narayan Khatate, and Deelip Dattatraya Gade, were employees of the petitioner society. They were issued identical charge-sheets dated 20.3.2011 alleging misconduct of riotous and disorderly behaviour. By Resolution No.3 dated 20.3.2011, they were terminated without any domestic inquiry. The respondents filed complaints under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) before the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that the termination without inquiry was an unfair labour practice and set aside the termination. The petitioners filed revisions before the Industrial Court, which dismissed them. The petitioners then approached the High Court. The High Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the termination without domestic inquiry is illegal and the courts below correctly applied the law. The court noted that the Industrial Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, cannot reappreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse, and no perversity was shown. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Termination Without Inquiry - Item 1 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The petitioners terminated the respondents without conducting any domestic inquiry. The Labour Court held that such termination amounts to an unfair labour practice. The Industrial Court upheld the same in revision. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the termination without inquiry is illegal and the courts below correctly applied the law. (Paras 1-5)
B) Labour Law - Revisional Jurisdiction - Industrial Court - Section 44 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, cannot reappreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. In the present case, the Industrial Court found no perversity and upheld the Labour Court's order. The High Court affirmed this view. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the respondents without holding a domestic inquiry constitutes an unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, and whether the Labour Court and Industrial Court correctly held the termination as illegal.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed all three writ petitions, upholding the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court. The termination of the respondents without domestic inquiry was held to be an unfair labour practice. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Termination without domestic inquiry is illegal
- Unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Labour Court has jurisdiction to decide validity of termination
- Industrial Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (06) 8
Writ Petition No. 4326 of 2015 with Civil Application No.6893 of 2015, Writ Petition No.4327/2015 with Civil Application No.6894 of 2015, Writ Petition No.4328/2015 with Civil Application No.6895 of 2015
Shri Latange V.P. for Petitioners, Shri Barde P.V. for Respondents
Loni Vyankanath Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd.
Dhanraj Dada Kakde, Sachin Narayan Khatate, Deelip Dattatraya Gade
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging Labour Court and Industrial Court orders in unfair labour practice complaints
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the Labour Court order dated 17.12.2013 and Industrial Court order dated 21.1.2015 which held the termination of respondents as illegal
Filing Reason
Petitioners terminated respondents without holding a domestic inquiry, which was challenged as an unfair labour practice
Previous Decisions
Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) Nos. 20, 19, 18 of 2011 held termination as illegal; Industrial Court in Revision (ULP) Nos. 10, 11, 12 of 2014 upheld the Labour Court order
Issues
Whether termination without domestic inquiry constitutes unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act
Whether Industrial Court correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the respondents were terminated for misconduct after issuing charge-sheets and resolution, but no inquiry was held
Respondents contended that termination without inquiry is illegal and amounts to unfair labour practice
Ratio Decidendi
Termination of an employee without holding a domestic inquiry constitutes an unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Industrial Court, in revisional jurisdiction, cannot reappreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard.
Rule.
By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal.
The petitioners seek to challenge the judgment and order dated 17.12.2013, delivered by the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) Nos. 20, 19 and 18 of 2011, respectively in these petitions. Similarly, the petitioners seek to challenge the judgment dated 21.1.2015, delivered by the Industrial Court in Revision (ULP) No. 10, 11 and 12 of 2014, respectively.
The common factors, emerging from these three petitions, in the submissions of Shri Latange, learned Advocate are as follows:- (a) All the respondents herein were issued with identical notices, dated 20.3.2011, levelling serious charges of mis-conducts of the nature of riotous and dis-orderly behaviour. (b) Vide Resolution No.3, dated 20.3.2011, all the respondents have been terminated for having committing mis-conduct, by the same orders. (c) The respondents filed the above referred three Complaints under item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 before the Labour Court. (d) Since there was no enquiry conducted, the issue as regards the inquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not required to be framed.
Procedural History
The respondents were issued charge-sheets on 20.3.2011 and terminated by Resolution No.3 dated 20.3.2011 without any domestic inquiry. They filed complaints under Item 1 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act before the Labour Court, which on 17.12.2013 held the termination as illegal. The petitioners filed revisions before the Industrial Court, which on 21.1.2015 upheld the Labour Court order. The petitioners then filed the present writ petitions before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Item 1 of Schedule IV, Section 44
