JUDGMENT - Smt. MHATRE NISHITA, J.:-This petition is directed against the order dated 28th June, 1996 passed by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur in Revision Application (ULP) Nos. 334 and 335 of 1995 which in revision has set aside the order dated 12th June, 1995 of the Labour Court, Satara passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 123 of 1991 filed by the petitioner. The Labour Court had allowed the Complaint partly by directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and 50% back wages.

2.The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows :

The petitioner joined the service with the respondent as an Assistant Security Officer after retiring prematurely from the Indian Air Force. He was later promoted on 15th May, 1989 as Security Officer. The petitioner was terminated from service with effect from 6th October, 1991 without any charge-sheet being issued to him and without an enquiry being held. Aggrieved by this action of the respondent, the petitioner filed complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Ex parte ad interim orders were passed which were set aside in revision. Writ petition was filed by the petitioner which was allowed. A Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the respondent. The Division Bench of this Court directed the respondent to pay 50% backwages to the petitioner during the pendency of the complaint.

3.Evidence, both documentary and oral, was led by the parties before the Labour Court. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was a "workman" under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, the complaint was maintainable. On merits, the Labour Court held that the termination of service of the petitioner was illegal, improper and that the respondent had committed unfair labour practice under Items 1(a), (b), (d) and (f) of the Act. The Labour Court directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and 50% back wages. The 50% of the back wages has already been paid to the petitioner.

4.Aggrieved by this order of the Labour Court, the respondent as well as the petitioner preferred revision applications under section 44 of the Act. The Industrial Court allowed the revision application filed by the respondent and set aside the order of the Labour Court on the ground that the petitioner was not a "workman" as defined under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "I.D. Act"). The revision application filed by the petitioner was rejected. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the revision application, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

5.Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the scope of the jurisdiction vested in the Industrial Court under section 44 of the Act is extremely narrow. The Industrial Court can interfere with the findings of the Labour Court only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record or the findings are perverse. According to the learned Advocate, the Labour Court had arrived at a finding of fact that the petitioner was a "workman" as defined under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and, therefore, the complaint was maintainable. He urges that the Industrial Court in revision could not come to a different conclusion on facts as to whether the petitioner was a workman. According to the learned Advocate, the Industrial Court has re-appreciated the evidence on record and concluded that the petitioner is not a workman. He relies on the judgments in the case (Ramchandra Narayan Rao v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Mandur Madhameshwar Project others)1, 2003(1) Bom.C.R. 656 and (R.A. Yadav others v. Special Steels Ltd. another)2, 2003(3) Bom.C.R. 96 in support of his contention. On merits, the learned Advocate submits that there is ample evidence on record to indicate and establish that the petitioner was a workman w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document