The Single Bench of the Bombay High Court consisting of Justice Ravindra V. Ghughe opined that the revisional jurisdiction of the Industrial Court u/s.44 of the 1971 State Act is akin to the Revisional Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is not an anathema to go through the oral and documentary evidence recorded before the Labour Court, in revisional jurisdiction of the Industrial Court. While considering the grounds raised in a revision petition, the Industrial Court will have to go through the evidence recorded so as to come to a conclusion as to whether the grounds for challenge are sustainable and if so, whether the findings/conclusions of the Labour Court can be termed as being perverse or erroneous.
Facts
14 workers had resorted to a strike without issuing a notice of strike, as required under the MRTU AND PULP Act, 1971 and the rules/regulations framed thereunder. Per contra, the workers had contended that they have not resorted to a strike, and they were not pressing any demands against the Management.
Procedural History
The Management served charge-sheets on all these workers and after conducting domestic enquiries under the Standing Orders framed under the BIR Act, issued dismissal orders to all of them. The Labour Court framed two issues wherein the domestic enquiry has been conducted. It concluded that the enquiries were conducted in accordance with the Standing Orders. However, it concluded that the findings were perverse. As such, the enquiry stood vitiated. The Labour Court concluded that the Management has failed to prove the charges against the workers. Simultaneously, the Management had approached the Industrial Court which concluded that the Management has failed to prove that these workers had indulged in an illegal strike and/or had instigated and coerced non-striking workers from performing their duties. This weighed in favour of the workers as an important piece of evidence. Consequentially, the Management led the same evidence before the Labour Court which it had led before the Industrial Court.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that:
“The position of the alleged striking workers cannot be placed at par with a terminated or dismissed worker, when the latter has to plead and prove that he was not in gainful employment. When, in a peculiar case, as the ones in hands, when it is concluded by the Industrial Court in an independent proceedings which has attained finality and by the Labour Court in dealing with the domestic enquiries, that the charge of striking work or instigating non striking workers to strike work, has failed, the legal presumption would be that the workers had offered themselves for work because they were not on a strike.”
“The Labour Court applied the principle of ‘no work – no pay’ for the period of their unemployment post dismissal, which may not be a sound conclusion. However, as these workers have not initiated proceedings praying for 100% back wages, the issue as to whether they could have been entitled for full back wages or little lesser back wages, is left open. Nevertheless, as the Labour Court has granted back wages to many complainants in between 10% to 30% and a few complainants to the extent of 50%, I do not find that the challenge on this aspect by the Management, could be sustained.”
“The revisional jurisdiction of the Industrial Court u/s.44 of the 1971 State Act is akin to the Revisional Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India…It is not an anathema to go through the oral and documentary evidence recorded before the Labour Court, in revisional jurisdiction of the Industrial Court. It cannot be said that the R & P of the Labour Court is not to be touched or opened by the Revisional Court. While considering the grounds raised in the revision petition, the Industrial Court will have to go through the evidence recorded to come to a conclusion as to whether the grounds for challenge are sustainable and if so, whether the findings/conclusions of the Labour Court can be termed as being perverse or erroneous.”
Judgment
The petitions being devoid of merit, were dismissed.
Case Name: Shri. Adinath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Maryadit, Bhalwani Through Its Authorised Representative vs Shri. Shriram Kisan Waghmare
Citation: WRIT PETITION NO. 14145 OF 2018
Bench: Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge
Decided on:9th February 2022
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments