9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Violation of Section 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (I.D. Act). 3. Compliance with Section 9-A of the I.D. Act. 4. Unfair Labour Practice under Schedule IV items 1(a), (b), (d), and (f) of the Maharashtra Act. 5. Interference with findings of fact by the Division Bench. 6. Final Order. Summary: Point No.1: Maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal The Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable as the respondent's Writ Petition invoked jurisdiction under both Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Single Judge's order did not explicitly limit the jurisdiction to Article 227, thus allowing the appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Point No.2: Violation of Section 33(1) of the I.D. Act The impugned termination order dated 22.6.1982 was passed during the pendency of conciliation proceedings without express written permission from the Conciliation Officer, violating Section 33(1) of the I.D. Act. The conciliation proceedings were deemed to have continued until the failure report reached the State Government on 13.8.1982. Point No.3: Compliance with Section 9-A of the I.D. Act The appellant failed to issue a notice u/s 9-A before the introduction of the photo-type composing machine, which had a likelihood of leading to retrenchment. The notice issued on 25th March 1982 was belated and invalid as it followed the introduction of the rationalisation scheme, violating Section 9-A of the I.D. Act. Point No.4: Unfair Labour Practice The impugned termination amounted to "unfair labour practice" under item 1(f) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Act due to undue haste. The termination order was passed within half an hour of the closure of conciliation proceedings, pre-empting the submission and consideration of the failure report by the State Government. Point No.5: Interference with Findings of Fact The Division Bench was justified in interfering with the findings of the Labour Court and Industrial Court, which had committed patent errors of law. The Division Bench corrected these errors without interfering with pure findings of fact. Point No.6: Final Order The final order of the High Court was sustained with modifications. The appellant was directed to pay the respondent 1/3rd of back-wages from 22nd June 1982 to 3rd May 1995, along with other consequential benefits. The payment was to be made within three months, failing which, interest at 12% per annum would be applicable. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
