RAM NARESH TRIPATI Vs. S D RANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution what falls for my consideration is an important question of law as to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 22 (ii) of the maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MRTU and PULP Act')

(2.) THE petitioner workman was an employee of the third respondent company. He was charge-sheeted on November 29, 1980 on certain allegations of misconduct. A domestic inquiry was ordered to inquire into his alleged acts of misconduct, which was fixed for hearing on december 2, 1980 and adjourned to December 6, 1980. It is the case of the petitioner that he requested the Inquiry Officer to allow him to be defended by one Talreja who claimed to be an office-bearer of the Bombay Mazdoor Union of which the petitioner was a member. It was also the case of the petitioner that the said Talreja was authorized to defend the members of his union at the domestic inquiries. The Inquiry Officer did not grant the request of the petitioner to allow him to be defended by the said Talreja. On consideration of the report submitted by the Inquiry officer, the company dismissed the petitioner on January 28, 1981.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the dismissal order, the petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No. 33 of 1981 in the Labour Court at Bombay presided over by the second respondent. He alleged in the complaint that by not allowing him to be defended by Talreja the principles of natural justice were violated and thus dismissing him, the third respondent committed unfair labour practice covered by Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act. The learned Labour Judge was of the view that regard being had to be provisions of Section 22 (ii) of the MRTU and PULP Act, the petitioner was not entitled to be defended by Talreja at the domestic inquiry who was not a member of either a recognised union or a non-recognised union functioning in the undertaking of the third respondent. He accordingly held that the respondent did not commit an act of unfair labour practice covered by Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, more especially because of petitioner was given an opportunity by the Inquiry Officer to be defended by any co-workman or a member of the union functioning in the undertaking of the third respondent. The learned Labour Judge accordingly, by his judgment and order dated June 30, 1982 dismissed the petitioner's complaint of unfair labour practice.