Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
P.S. Shah H.H. Kantharia, JJ.
Voltas Limited... Petitioner.
Versus
M.M. Kendrekar, Presiding Officer another... Respondents.
Special Civil Application No. 3047 of 1976, decided on 7-7-83.
Advocates appeared :
P. Ramaswami, for petitioner.
Respondent No. 2 (In person).
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - TERMINATION OF SERVICES - UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICE - REINSTATEMENT WITH BACK WAGES - VOLTAS LIMITED V. NARAYAN K. NAIK - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - 1984 - H.H. KANTHARIA, J.: - The Bombay High Court held that the termination of services of a temporary employee without following due procedure and without giving an opportunity to explain the charges of misconduct amounted to an unfair labour practice and victimization. The Court directed the reinstatement of the employee with full back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement, except for the period from the date of settlement (when the employee accepted a monetary settlement) to the date when the Supreme Court set aside the settlement and remanded the matter back to the High Court.
Fact of the Case:
Narayan K. Naik, a temporary employee of Voltas Limited, was not given work after 24-9-1973. He filed a complaint with the Government Labour Officer alleging unfair termination of services. The matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication.
Finding of the Court:
The Labour Court found that the termination of services was illegal and directed the reinstatement of the employee with full back wages.
Issues: Whether the termination of services of a temporary employee without following due procedure and without giving an opportunity to explain the charges of misconduct amounted to an unfair labour practice and victimization.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the termination of services of the employee was illegal as it was done without following due procedure and without giving him an opportunity to explain the charges of misconduct. The Court also held that the Company indulged in unfair labour practice and victimization by not confirming the employee despite his long service and by terminating his services on flimsy grounds.
Final Decision: The Court directed the reinstatement of the employee with full back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement, except for the period from the date of settlement to the date when the Supreme Court set aside the settlement and remanded the matter back to the High Court.
2. The workman had been in the employment of the Company as 'Sepoy' intermittently for a period of 8 years from 28-10-65 to 24-9-73 on temporary basis. His last employment in this manner was from 18-9-73 to 24-9-73 which was, as per the appointment letter dated 18-9-73, automatically to cease on 24-9-73 unless extended in writing; but it could be terminated on any day earlier without any notice and without assigning any reason. The appointment was on basic salary of Rs. 45/- per month plus dearness allowance as may be in enforce from time to time. He was not given work on and from 25-9-73. He felt aggrieved on account of termination of his services in this manner by the Company and, therefore, lodged a complaint with the Government Labour Officer on 16-2-74. During the intervening period he was going to the Company off and on with a hope to get re-employment, but in vain. It appears that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour intervened and the matter was admitted in conciliation. Since it was not settled the Conciliation Officer submitted failure report on 29-6-74. Under the circumstances, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 10 read with sub-section (5) of section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Administration) Bombay, made a reference by his order dated 31-7-74 to the 4th Labour Court, Bombay, for adjudication of the dispute between the Company and the workman. The schedule annexed to the order of reference indicates that the demand of the workman was that he should be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of the services with effect from 24-9-73.
3. The case of the workman as per his statement of claim was that he was an employee of the Company as 'Sepoy' and 'Sepoy-cum-Hamal' on temporary basis. It was a regular practice with the Company that the employees in 'Sepoy' or 'Sepory-cum-Hamal' and similar categories were recruited initially as temporary employees and confirmed later according to their seniority. However, in his case, although he had joined the Company on 28-10-65 and had become a member of the Company's Provident Fund on 7-7-68 and was the senior-most employee in the said category he was not made permanent inspite of the fact that there was an agreement dated 31-12-70 signed before the Conciliation Officer between the Company and the Union representing the workman like him. According to him, he was not made permanent with ulterior motive and juniors to him viz. (1) Suresh Gangan and (2) Govind Keshav Dutt were made permanent thus violating the terms of the agreement dated 31-12-70. He further contended that the Company had neither charge-sheeted him nor had conducted any enquiry and without assigning any valid reason or without giving notice in writing arbitrarily discharged him from services which amounted to unfair labour practice and violation of principles of natural justice. He, therefore, demanded reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The Company resisted his claim and as per written statement it was their case that the workman was purely temporary having been employed intermittently from 28-10-65 to 24-9-73 if and when there was a leave vacancy or rush for work. Thus he was under the employment at their Air-conditioning and Refrigerat
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
