The judgment established that the relief sought by the respondent determined the jurisdiction of the court, highlighting the importance of correctly classifying complaints under the relevant items of Schedule IV of the Act.

Headnote:
Unfair Labour Practice - Termination of Services - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Item 9 of Schedule IV
Fact of the Case:

The respondent filed a complaint under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, alleging unfair labour practice by the petitioner in terminating his services without issuing a charge-sheet or conducting an enquiry. The Industrial Court held in favor of the respondent, directing the withdrawal and cancellation of the termination letter.
Finding of the Court:

The Industrial Court found that the petitioner had committed unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act and concluded that the complaint was maintainable under this item. It also held that the respondent was a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the complaint under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act and the classification of the respondent as a workman.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the relief sought by the respondent, reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages, fell within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act, making the complaint under Item 9 not maintainable.
Final Decision: The court ruled that the complaint under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act was not maintainable and made the rule absolute with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT - Smt. NISHITA MHATRE, J.---Through this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order of the Industrial Court passed in a complaint filed under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.

2. A few facts of the case in brief are as follows :

The respondent-workman joined Duke Sons in 1983. He was appointed as an Assistant in Sales Department. He was later working as a Sales Co-ordinator. In 1994, the petitioner-company took over the business of Duke Sons. Some persons employed with the petitioner accepted the Voluntary Retirement Scheme offered to them. The respondent was also offered this scheme, but did not accept the same. The respondent received salary inclusive of Dearness Allowance and other allowances. Some time in December, 1994, the respondent availed of leave of 15 days i.e. 5 days in January, 1994 and 10 days in February 1995. The respondent was issued a show-cause notice and he informed the petitioner that he had to attend to his ailing mother and, therefore, was unable to attend to duty. His leave of absence was then adjusted and the respondent received full wages for the months of December, 1994 and January 1995. Thereafter on 29-3-1995, the respondent was issued a letter of termination.

3. The respondent, therefore, filed a complaint under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Industrial Court. The allegation in the complaint is that the petitioner had committed an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act by terminating the services of the respondent without issuing any charge-sheet and without conducting any enquiry. The respondent prayed that the petitioner should be directed to withdraw and cancel the termination order dated 29-3-1995. An application for interim relief was also made and the interim relief sought was for reinstatement in service or payment of monthly salary on the 7th of each month.

4. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner who pleaded that the respondent was not an 'employee' within the meaning and definition contained in section 3 sub-section (5) of the Act as he was not a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'I.D. Act'), but a sales executive in-charge of sales promotional work for South Bombay region. The petitioner then filed an application for amendment to the written statement which was allowed. By this amendment, the petitioner raised a plea that the complaint was not maintainable before the Industrial Court as the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages fell within the mischief of Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act and not under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act.

5. It appears that an application was made by the petitioner to hear the preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the complaint in the first instance. This application was rejected by the Industrial Court and, therefore, a writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner. This petition was withdrawn and the Industrial Court heard the issue regarding the maintainability alongwith the merits of the complaint.

6. Evidence of the petitioner was led by examining one Mukesh Dilip Dutt, who was working as a Customer Co-ordinator. The respondent examined himself in support of his case. On the basis of the evidence led before it, the Industrial Court held that the petitioner had indulged in unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act and directed them to withdraw and cancel the termination letter dated 29-3-1995. The Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the complaint was maintainable under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act since the respondent had only asked for the withdrawal or cancellation of the termination letter and not for reinstatement or any other consequential reliefs. As regards the is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis