Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 100
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Vibhag Niyantrak (Divisional Controller) Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation – Petitioners
Versus
Kamalakar Harishchandra Somwanshi and Ors. – Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO.427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432 OF 2016
Decided On : 03.02.2016
Advocate Appeared:
Shri D.S. Bagul, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri S.B. Gastagar, Advocate for respondents.
Important Point – Industrial Court cannot look into enquiry on the basis of documents which were foreign to record and proceedings of enquiry.
Headnote:Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 – Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV – Unfair Labour Practice – Illegal strike – Industrial Court could not have looked into enquiry on the basis of documents which were foreign to record and proceedings of enquiry – Industrial Court should have appreciated that unless a document amounts to a settlement u/s 2(p) or is an agreement or is an award u/s 2(b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, no sanctity can be attributed to such a document – Industrial Court has lost sight of fact that though act of indulging in an illegal strike is considered to be a grave and serious act in catena of judgments, punishment awarded to respondents was only reduction of basic pay by one stage – Such punishment could not be termed as being shockingly disproportionate to gravity and seriousness of misconduct – Impugned judgments delivered by Industrial Court set aside.
Result – Writ Petitions allowed.
1] In all these petitions, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 8.7.2015 delivered by the Industrial Court, Latur, in Complaint (ULP) Nos.180/2011, 175/2011, 179/2011, 177/2011, 178/2011 and 176/2011, filed by the respondent –employees respectively.
2] The petitioner in all these petitions is the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. All the sole respondents in these petitions are the employees, who have been charged with for having participated in an illegal strike, which occurred on 28.11.2000. Considering the involvement of the respondents in a common act, which is a common issue in all these petitions, they have been taken up together for hearing.
3] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
4] By the impugned judgment, the Industrial Court, Latur, has allowed the complaints filed by the respondents with costs. Unfair labour practice under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, has been declared against the petitioner. The order of stoppage of one increment by way of punishment, has been set aside by the Industrial Court.
5] The contentions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner – Corporation can be summarized as follows:
a] The employees belonging to the largest union of the employees in the M.S.R.T. Corporation called for a strike on 28.11.2000.
b] The notice of strike did not fulfill the requirement of 14 days notice period.
c] On 28.11.2000, the strike commenced leading to the non-plying of the Buses.
d] A loss of Rs.2,42,345/to the petitioner – Corporation was assessed by the competent authority.
e] Complaint (ULP) No.216/2000 was filed by the petitioner before the Industrial Court at Latur thereby seeking a declaration of unfair labour practices for having resorted to an illegal strike by invoking Items 1(a) and (b), 5 and 6 of Schedule III of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
f] The Industrial Court concluded that the declaration of illegal strike was not sought by the petitioner u/s 25 of the 1971 Act from the Labour Court and hence the complaint was untenable before the Industrial Court.
g] By judgment dated 10.8.2007, Complaint (ULP) No.216/2000 was dismissed by the Industrial Court.
h] Prior to the decision in the complaint, chargesheet dated 23.7.2001 was issued to all these respondents alleging their involvement in the illegal strike and for committing a misconduct under the Discipline & Appeal Rules of the MSRTC.
i] Full-fledged domestic enquiries were conducted against all the respondents.
j] Not a single respondent took a defence in response to the chargesheet or by way of evidence before the Enquiry Officer that there was an oral or written agreement between the union and the Divisional Controller of Latur that no action Against the employees in relation to the illegal strike would be initiated.
k] Barring one employee namely Shivaji Rajaram Mule (Writ Petition No.429/2016), none of the other respondents took a stand in response to the second show cause notice that there was some agreement between the union and the Divisional Controller.
l] Only Shivaji Rajaram Mule has taken the stand that there were some minutes recorded between the Divisional Controller personally and the union office bearers by which it was agreed that the striking workers would be pardoned for their illegal strike.
m] The report of the Enquiry Officer based on the evidence recorded, held the respondents guilty of the charges leveled upon them.
n] A second show cause notice dated 21.8.2010 was issued to each of the respondents proposing the punishment of reducing the basic pay by two stages.
o] After hearing the respondents and considering their replies, the petitioner passed an order dated 31.8.2010 imposing the punishment of reduction in basic pay by two stages.
p] The respondents preferred departmental appeals before the first appellate authority as was permissible under the Rules.
q]
