2002 Supreme(Bom) 1132

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Radhakrishnan S., J.
Prabhakar Engineers Pvt. Ltd. .... Petitioner.
Versus
Ramchandra Baburao Mohite another.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 4007 of 1995, decided on 18-10-2002.
Advocates appeared :
J.P. Cama i/b., K.P. Anilkumar, for petitioner.
N.A. Kulkarni with Kiran Bapat, for respondent No. 1.

Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Workman - Departmental enquiry - Disobedience of lawful orders of superiors - Resorting to illegal strike and aiding, instigating others in furthering same within premises - Acted in manner subversive of discipline - Workman not appeared before Enquiry Officer despite proper notice - Labour Court I declared strike illegal - Management dismissed workman - Reference - Award of Labour Court in two parts - Enquiry conducted not proper, fair and legal - Although workman committed misconduct yet directed his reinstatement with 40% back wages - Held - Employee taken part in strike - Strike duly declared illegal - Workman committed serious misconduct - Labour Court passed award by ignoring evidence on record - Erroneous - Award unsustainable - Quashed. - In fact if one were to look at the evidence, on record, it is clear that the respondent employee himself has admitted that he had taken part in the illegal strike and that such a strike was in fact declared illegal by an order of the Labour Court. Over and above, there are ample evidence on record to indicate that the respondent employee had instigated and incited the others to go on strike and had prevented the others from working and had used abusive and filthy language against the superiors and did not obey the orders of the superiors as clearly borne out in the evidence. Therefore, the errors are patent and apparent from the face of the record, inasmuch as the Labour Court has totally ignored the admitted fact that the respondent employee had taken part in an illegal strike and has also ignored the clear evidence indicating the instigation and incitement in furtherance of the strike and the use of a very filthy and abusive language by the respondent employee. The Labour Court has also ignored the clear disobedience of lawful orders of the superiors by the respondent employee. The labour Court has clearly ignored the said part of the evidence and has committed an illegality amounting to perversity. The record clearly indicates that all the four charges are proved. As far as the strike is concerned, it is clear that the respondent employee along with others had gone on strike from 13th June, 1986 and the said strike was also declared to be illegal by the Labour Court by its order dated 29th August, 1986. It is clear that the participation in an illegal strike by itself amounts to a misconduct under the Model Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. There are ample evidence on record to indicate that it was not a strike for few hours but the same continued for many days and that the instigation and incitement also continued for a number of days. The evidence on record also indicated that others were not allowed to work, and very filthy and abusive language was used by the respondent employee. Threats were also given to the superiors. Under these circumstances, one cannot say that the punishment inflicted on the delinquent respondent employee to be shockingly disproportionate. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned awards; Part I Award as well as Part II Award stand quashed and set-aside. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of the above

       Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Sections 28 and 59, Schedule IV, Item 1(g) - Complaint of unfair labour practice - Pending before Industrial Court - Further proceedings initiated under I.D. Act - Obtained interim order - Contention - When proceedings were pending under ULP complaint this amounted to bar under Section 59 of MRTU and PULP Act - Proceedings under I.D. Act wrongly initiated. - As far as issue of bar under Section 59 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 is concerned, it is clear that the respondent-employee had adopted appropriate proceedings before the Industrial Court complaining of unfair labour practice and had also obtained an ad interim relief restraining the petitioner-employer from terminating the services of the respondent- employee. Mere reading of Section 59 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 makes it abundantly clear that if already any proceedings are pending before the Industrial Court or the Labour Court under the aforesaid Act, another parallel proceeding cannot be initiated. Hence, even on this ground Court is in agreement with Mr. Cama s submissions that there was a clear statutory bar under Section 59 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 on the Labour Court from continuing with the reference which was made on 13th November, 1987.

       Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10(1) - Complaint under I.D. Act - I.D. Court issued interim orders - Contention - Continuance of proceedings under U.L.P. complaint amounted to a bar under Section 59 of MRTU and PULP Act - So proceedings under I.D. Act could not be initiated - Held - Section 59 of MRTU and PULP Act imposes complete bar to proceedings before Labour Court under I.D. Act when proceedings were pending in ULP. - Instead of invoking the reliefs in the pending proceedings before the Industrial Court, the respondent employee chose to raise an industrial dispute seeking a reference before the Labour Court. The said reference was made before the Labour Court on 13th November, 1987 and subsequent thereto on 6th January, 1988 the complaint before the Industrial Court was withdrawn. Mere reading of Section 59 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P Act, 1971 makes it abundantly clear that if already any proceedings are pending before the Industrial Court or the Labour Court under the aforesaid Act, another parallel proceeding cannot be initiated. Hence, even on this ground Court is in agreement with Mr. Cama s submissions that there was a clear statutory bar under Section 59 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 on the Labour Court from continuing with the reference which was made on 13th November, 1987.

       Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Sections 28 and 59, Schedule IV, Item 1(g) - Re- instatement allowed with 40% back-wages - Labour Court accepted facts as indiscipline and misconduct - Disproportionate punishment - Held - In face of accepted grave charges - It committed illegality in allowing reinstatement. - In fact if one were to look at the evidence on record, it is clear that the respondent-employee himself has admitted that he had taken part in the illegal strike and that such a strike was in fact declared illegal by an order of the Labour Court. Over and above, there is ample evidence on record to indicate that the respondent-employee had instigated and incited the others to go on strike and had prevented the others from working and had used abuse and filthy language against the superiors and did not obey the orders of the superiors as clearly borne out in the evidence. Therefore the errors are patent and apparent from the face of the record, inasmuch as the Labour Court has totally ignored the admitted fact that the respondent- employee had taken part in an illegal strike and has also ignored the clear evidence indicating the instigation and incitement in furtherance of the strike and the use of very filthy and abusive language by the respondent-employee. The Labour Court has also ignored the clear disobedience of lawful orders of the superiors by the respondent-employee. The Labour Court has clearly ignored the said part of the evidence and has committed an illegality amounting to perversity. The record clearly indicates that all the four charges are proved.