RAJUBHAI MODI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition questions the judgment of the learned Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai, dismissing the petitioners' appeal against their conviction by the learned Presiding Officer, 12th Labour Court, Mumbai, for the offence punishable under Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the MRTU & PULP Act") and sentence of simple imprisonment of one month each imposed upon the petitioners. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are the employers of respondent Pandit Raji Shukla. The petitioners had allegedly terminated his services on 7.11.2000, though according to the petitioners, in fact, it was the respondent who had abandoned his service. Petitioners claim that they had written a letter to the respondent calling upon him to resume duties. The respondent accordingly resumed duties on 8.10.2001. However, soon thereafter, according to the respondent, the petitioners made it impossible for him to continue and threw him out of service again. He was accordingly prevented from working from 20.1.2003. In spite of the orders passed by the Labour Court on 16.11.2004 directing the petitioners herein to reinstate the complainant with continuity of service and back wages from 7.11.2000 to 8.10.2001 and since January, 2003 onwards, the respondent was not allowed to work. The respondent, therefore, filed a complaint before the Labour Court for having the petitioners punished in accordance with Section 48 of the MRTU & PULP Act. The learned Labour Judge held the petitioners guilty of offence punishable under Section 48 of the MRTU & PULP Act and sentenced the petitioners to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved thereby, they preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by the impugned order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai.

(2.) The petition was admitted on 20.11.2009. When the petition came up for hearing on 6.9.2012, none appeared for the respondent. Today too none appeared for the respondent.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the orders passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court as well as the Member, Industrial Court, holding the petitioners guilty, cannot be sustained because it was in fact the respondent who had abandoned his employment. He submits that, by notice dated 31.3.2005, the respondent's advocate informed the petitioners that the respondent opted only to receive back wages from 7.11.2000 to 8.10.2001 and from January, 2003 onwards. Since this notice was issued on 31.3.2005, the respondent could obviously be taken to have given up the claim for reinstatement from 31.3.2005 and, therefore, would be entitled to his wages only till that day. The learned counsel for the petitioners tenders an affidavit of both the petitioners who are present in the Court stating that the respondent was in receipt of salary of Rs. 3700/- per month and the salary for the period from 7.11.2000 till 8.10.2001 and from 20.1.2003 till 31.3.2005 i.e. for 37 months, would come to Rs. 1,36,900/-. Adding interest thereon, the petitioners are ready to pay a rounded sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- in 12 monthly installments. The learned counsel submits that, in view of this fact the respondent did not want employment, but all that he wanted was the back wages, the sentence imposed upon the petitioners for non-compliance of orders ought to be set aside. In view of the undertaking of the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards the arrears of wages for the period referred in notice dated 31.3.2005 with interest, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners to prison. Rather, payment of this mode would ensure that the grievance of the respondent is redressed and he receives the amount which he had asked for by notice dated 31.3.2005. Petitioners going to prison is unlikely to benefit the respondent. In view of this, the petition is allowed in the following terms:-