The Labour Court's jurisdiction under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 is limited to determining whether the dismissal of a workman amounted to an unfair labour practice. The Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to determine the fairness and legality of a domestic enquiry.

JUDGMENT - R.A. JAHAGIRDAR, J.:---This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order passed by the Presiding Officer in the Labour Court at Nasik on 30th September 1981 in Complaint (ULP) No. 240 of 1976. The said complaint had been filed by the first respondent in this petition, hereinafter referred to as ''the respondent'', under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as ''Act I of 1972''. It was the case of the respondent that the petitioner, which is the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, had terminated his services which was an unfair labour practice within the meaning of Clauses (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act 1 of 1972. The Labour Court held, answering an issue which it raised, that the enquiry which was held against the respondent was not fair, proper and legal.

2. In order to understand the nature of the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to narrate certain facts. The respondent was the driver of a bus belonging to the petitioner Corporation and he was on duty on 9th of May, 1975. On that day when the bus neared a bus stand at a place called Waghai in Nasik District, the respondent did not stop the bus at the bus stand despite the fact that several persons who had assembled at the bus stand signalled him to do so. However, he stopped the bus at some distance away from the bus stand. He thereafter told the passengers who intended to board that bus that each one of them should pay a sum of Rs. 2. If they boarded the bus without making the said payment he threatened, he would take the bus to the office of the R.T.O. Among the passengers who intended to board the bus and did board the bus on that day was one Vasant Daga Patil, a Director of the District Central Co-operative Bank. The passengers paid the money in the hands of the conductor of the bus who later handed over the same to the respondent at the next bus stand. Thereafter the said Vasant Daga Patil filed a complaint.

3. A preliminary enquiry was held in which statements of several persons were recorded. After the preliminary enquiry it was decided to proceed against the respondent and accordingly a charge-sheet dated 25th of November, 1975 was issued to the respondent wherein he was charged with the misconduct of taking money from the passengers illegally. The respondent submitted his reply and a domestic enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion, on the basis of the statements of Vasant Daga Patil and of the bus conductor who was in charge of the bus at the relevant time, that the respondent was guilty of the misconduct with which he had been charged. After considering the finding so recorded in the domestic enquiry a further show cause notice was issued to the respondent as to why the ultimate penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed upon him. After considering his reply the said penalty was ultimately imposed upon him.

4. This order of penalty of the dismissal from service was challenged by the respondent in the Labour Court in the complaint filed by him. I have already mentioned above that the respondent had contended that his dismissal was an unfair labour practice within the meaning of Clauses (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Item 1 of Schedule IV of Act 1 of 1972. If the dismissal is not in good faith but in colourable exercise of employer's right, it is covered by Clause (b); if the dismissal is for patently false reasons, it is covered by Clause (d); if the dismissal is made in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice in the conduct of the domestic enquiry or in undue haste, then it would be covered by Clause (f); and if the dismissal is for misconduct of a minor or technical character without having any regard to the nature of the particular misconduct or the past record of service of the employee so as to amount to a shockingly disproportionate puni

Click Here to Read the rest of this document