Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 1361
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Dhule, through its Secretary – Petitioner
Versus
Parashram Daga Patil – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 10501 of 2017
Decided On : 28-08-2017
For the Petitioner: B. Anjanwatikar Vinay.
For the Respondent: S. Patil Shrikant.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 to the Petitioner Organization and the rights of the workman under the Act, along with the interpretation of the suspension rules under the 1967 Rules.
Headnote:
Suspension - Unfair Labour Practice - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Rule 102(v) and Rule 104 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967 - The Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa and Others, AIR 1978 SC 548
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner challenged the judgment of the Industrial Court which set aside the suspension order issued to the Respondent and directed the Petitioner to pay arrears of pay and allowances to the Respondent. The Petitioner contended that the Respondent was suspended as a punishment until retirement, and the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 did not apply to the Petitioner Organization. The Respondent argued that no enquiry was conducted against him and the Petitioner failed to produce any document related to the domestic enquiry record.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the suspension order was illegal and set it aside. It held that the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 applied to the Petitioner Organization and that the Respondent, being a workman, could challenge the suspension before the Industrial Court. The Court also found that the Petitioner's contentions regarding the departmental enquiry and the Respondent's entitlement to suspension allowance were untenable.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the suspension order, applicability of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, and the entitlement to suspension allowance.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to determine the applicability of the Act and the rights of the workman. It also interpreted Rule 102(v) and Rule 104 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967 in relation to the suspension order.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, set aside the suspension order, and imposed costs on the Petitioner. It directed the Petitioner to deposit the costs and recommended amending Rule 102(v) of the 1967 Rules.
1 The Petitioner/APMC is aggrieved by the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 12.06.2017 by which Complaint (ULP) No. 138/1997 has been allowed and the suspension order issued to the Respondent/Employee dated 06.07.1981 has been set aside.
2. The operative part of the impugned order reads as under:
"1. The complaint is allowed.
2. It is declared that the respondent has engaged in unfair labour practice by putting the complainant under suspension illegal. The respondent is directed to cease and desist from the said act in future.
3. It is declared that the suspension order dated 06.07.1981 is illegal and hence set aside.
4. The respondent is directed to pay all consequential arrears of pay and allowances including gratuity and pension to the complainant within 02 months from the date of this order, failing which, the amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
5. The respondent shall also pay cost of this litigation of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant."
3. I have considered the strenuous submissions of Shri Anjanwatikar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner on 23.08.2017 and today and the submissions of Shri Patil, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent.
4. The Petitioner has primarily raised the following grounds:
(a) The Respondent was suspended by an order dated 06.07.1981.
(b) The suspension was by way of punishment in eternity till the Respondent attended the age of retirement.
(c) A departmental enquiry was conducted against the Respondent before awarding the punishment of suspension.
(d) The Respondent could not have approached the Industrial Court for challenging his suspension in the light of Rule 102(v) and Rule 104 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967 (for short "the 1967 Rules").
(e) The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short "the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971") is not applicable to the Petitioner Organization.
(f) The Respondent will not be entitled for any suspension allowance.
(g) The Respondent owned a printing press and hence, he is not entitled to suspension allowance.
5. Learned Advocate for the Respondent/Employee submits as under:
(a) No enquiry was conducted against him.
(b) The Petitioner has failed to produce any document before the Industrial Court, which can be said to be a part of the domestic enquiry record.
(c) No charge sheet was produced before the Industrial Court.
(d) A copy of the purported enquiry report was also not produced before the Industrial Court.
(e) No show cause notice was given to him, if at all any punishment was to be imposed.
(f) The printing press at issue was being conducted by his wife and even while he was in employment, the printing press was being operated by his wife.
(g) The Petitioner could not establish before the Industrial Court that the Respondent was drawing salary from the printing press or was in gainful employment.
6. After considering the submissions of the learned Advocates and upon going through the record available, I find the case in hand to be quite peculiar. In fact, it shocks my judicial conscience for the reasons recorded herein below.
7. Insofar as the contention of the Petitioner that the complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 could not have been filed before the Industrial Court is concerned, the same is fallacious. The 1967 Rules of the APMC will not overbear the State of Maharashtra Legislation by which the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 was brought into effect in 1975. Any person falling within the definition of "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the definition of "employee" under Section 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, could file a complaint of unfair labour practice before the Labour Court to the extent of Item 1 of Schedule IV and before the Industrial Court to the extent of Schedules II, III and Items 2 to 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP
