Writ Petition Partially Allowed - Restoration of ULP Complaint after 19 Years. The Bombay High Court restores a long-pending unfair labour practice complaint while denying back wages and setting a time-bound trial schedule.

Sub Category: Bombay High Court
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Issue of Consideration:  Sambhaji Shankar Vanave  Versus  Divisional Women And Child Welfare And Anr.

2024 LawText (BOM) (9) 238

WRIT PETITION NO. 10428 OF 2022

2024-09-23

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Mr. Rajaram V Bansode, for the Petitioner. Mr. Bapusaheb Dahiphale, A.G.P., for the Respondent-State.

 Sambhaji Shankar Vanave  

Divisional Women And Child Welfare And Anr.

Related Judgement
High Court "Fraudulent Claims and Jurisdiction: A Landmark Decision on Caste Validity"
Related Judgement
High Court Writ Petition Partially Allowed - Restoration of ULP Complaint after 19 Years. ...