Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
R.K. Deshpande, J.
Jagannath Mane – Appellant
Versus
Wokhardt Ltd. – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5891 of 2010
Decided On : 29-06-2010
For the Appellant : T.K. Prabhakaran
For the Respondent: R.V. Ghuge
The court emphasized the need to apply the principles laid down by the Apex Court for determining compensation in unfair labour practice cases.
Headnote:
Unfair Labour Practice - Employee Dismissal - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 - 28, Schedule IV (1(a)(b)(d)(f)(g)) - MRTU and PULP Act
Fact of the Case:
An employee challenged his dismissal from service and invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the MRTU and PULP Act for declaration of unfair labour practice and reinstatement with back-wages. The Labour Court allowed the complaint, set aside the dismissal, and granted lump sum compensation. The Industrial Court upheld the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The determination of the amount of compensation awarded by the Labour Court was challenged. The employee argued that the compensation was inadequate, citing judgments of the Apex Court. The employer contended that the Labour Court had considered relevant factors in determining the compensation.
Issues: The main issue was the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the Labour Court in lieu of reinstatement and continuity in service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court referred to the criteria/principles laid down by the Apex Court in O.P. Bhandari v. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and Workmen v. Bharat Fritz Werner(P) Ltd. for determining compensation in lieu of reinstatement. It found that the Labour Court had not applied these principles and directed a rehearing on the quantum of compensation.
Final Decision: The judgment and order passed by the lower courts were set aside to the extent of the determination of compensation, and the matter was remanded back to the Labour Court for deciding the quantum of compensation after hearing the parties.
R.K. Deshpande, J
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, matter is heard finally.
2. This Petition is preferred by an employee who had challenged his dismissal from service w.e.f November 24, 1993, after holding Departmental Enquiry in respect of the charges held to be proved against him, by filing Complaint (ULP) No. 90/2001 invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court u/s 28 read with Items 1(a)(b)(d)(f) and (g) of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act for short), for declaration of unfair labour practice on the part of the employer and for granting relief of reinstatement in service with continuity in service and back-wages. The Labour Court by its judgment and order dated April 15, 2005. allowed the Complaint and set aside the order of dismissal dated November 24, 1993 and granted declaration that the employer shall cease and desist from engaging in unfair labour practice. In lieu of reinstatement and continuity in service, the Labour Court directed payment of lump sum compensation amount of Rs. 2,05,000 to the complainant.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the employee preferred Revision (ULP) No. 64/2005. The Industrial Court maintained the findings recorded by the Labour Court and dismissed the Revision Petition by its judgment and order dated January 17, 2008. Hence, the present Petition is preferred by an employee challenging the judgment and order passed by both the Courts as below.
4. The limited issue which is raised and involved in the present petition is, as to the amount of compensation awarded by the Labour Court i.e. of Rs. 2,05,000 to the Petitioner, complainant in lieu of reinstatement and continuity in service. Except this, no other ground is pressed in the present Petition. According to Shri Prabhakaran, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the determination of the amount of compensation of Rs. 2,05.000 by the Labour Court is not based upon the valid criteria and that it is in ignorance of the evidence available on record. He submits that the compensation awarded is totally inadequate looking to the salary which was paid to the employee and the number of years service he has rendered and the number of years service he was to render, in the absence of order of dismissal. He relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Workmen Vs. Bharat Fritz Werner (P) Ltd. and Another, (1990) 3 SCC 565. He further submits that this judgment follows the earlier judgment of the Apex Court in the case of O.P. Bhandari Vs. Indian Tourism Development Corpn. Ltd. and Others, (1986) 4 SCC 337. According to him. the guidelines are prescribed in the decision of the Apex Court. In O.P. Bhandari v. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors. (supra), which is being followed. However, according to him, the Labour Court has failed to apply these principles while determining the compensation.
5. Shri Ghuge, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent employer on the other hand, submitted that the Labour Court has taken into consideration the fact that the employee was getting a monthly income of Rs. 3000 and that his financial position was sound and after taking into consideration the relevant factors, the amount of compensation has been determined at Rs. 2,05,000. He, therefore, supports the findings recorded by the Labour Court. He further submits that the finding of fact is also confirmed by the Industrial Court in Revision and hence, the same needs no interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by this Court.
6. The judgment of the Apex Court in O.P. Bhandari v. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors. (supra), lays down the criteria/principles which are required to be followed while determining the compensation in lieu of reinstatement and continuity in service. The criteria laid down in the said judgment is followed in the l
