Unlawful termination of employees engaged in union activities constitutes unfair labor practices, entitling them to reinstatement and back wages.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

1) By the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 28/02/2025 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court Maharashtra Bench at Jalna in Complaint U.L.P. No. 225/2019 filed under section 28 r/w Item Nos. 1(a), 1(b), 4(a) and 5 of Schedule I and Items 2, 5, 6, 9 and 10 Schedule-IV of the Maharashtra Recognition Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MRTU & PULP Act’ for short). By the impugned order the Industrial Court declared that the petitioners herein indulged in unfair labour practices under section 28 r/w Item Nos. 1(a), 1(b), 4(a) and 5 of Schedule I and Items 2, 5, 6 and 9 Schedule-IV of the MRTU & PULP Act and directed the petitioner to desist from committing such unfair labour practices. The Industrial Court has also quashed and set aside the termination orders dated 31.1.2020 and 1.2.2020 issued to the complainants/workmen by the petitioner and directed the petitioner to reinstate the complainants within two months of the passing of the order. Petitioner is further directed to pay the balance of 50% of backwages to the complainants from the date of their termination till the date of reinstatement within two months of the passing of the order.

2) Brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, can be summarised as under :-

It is the case of the complainants’/workmen that petitioner is a company that manufactures chain kits that are supplied to M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited in Aurangabad under the brand name Roll-on. The petitioner employed in the factory about 550 employees, out of which 50 are managerial staff and the rest are all workers. The complainants are permanent workers.

3) The complainants had approached Industrial Court earlier by filing Complaint ULP No. 125/2019 and Complaint ULP No. 130/2019 and by interim orders dated 11.6.2019 and 25.6.2019 the Industrial Court had restrained the petitioner from making any changes in service conditions of the complainants. The petitioner had also filed Complaint ULP No. 129/2019 against complainant No. 1 and the ad-interim order was passed on 25.6.2019 in this complaint. It is the case of the complainants that the complainants raised demand for wage rise on 18.7.2019 which has resulted in a certain proceedings and the same is subjudice in which the petitioner had grudge against the complainants for forming a union and the petitioners were threatening the complainants with dismissal from service for joining the respondent No. 1/Union. On 9.11.2019 the then complainant No. 20 Sachin Pawar had some dispute/altercation with the canteen contractor and he was called upon by the management to give an undertaking and tender apology, but he declined to obey. Thereafter, the petitioner kept Sachin Pawar and others idle and did not allot any work. The complainants were asked to sign and execute a good conduct bond/undertaking. The complainants refused to give such undertaking. The respondent No. 1/Union reported the acts of the management to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour Office, Aurangabad, who had visited the factory and settled the matter. The Deputy Commissioner had suggested that Sachin Pawar should tender an apology and both parties accepted the suggestion and assured normalcy. However, the petitioner again insisted on the undertaking and refused to give work to the complainants. It is stated that the complainants assembled at a place beyond 500 mtrs. by informing the petitioner that complainants were willing to work if the pre-conditi