CHIRAYATH KUNJIPALIAN JOSEPH Vs. AMRAPALI WORKING WOMENS HOSTEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the order of the industrial Court at Bombay dated January 22, 1987 in Revision application (ULP) No. 46 of 1986 by which the application preferred by the first respondent being women's hostel came to be allowed and the order of the Labour Court dated July 28, 1986 in Complaint (ULP) No. 68 of 1985 came to be overruled and as a result, the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated january 22, 1987 passed by the Industrial Court has failed the present petition.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows :

(3.) IT is necessary to go into details as the said order passed by the Revisional Court particularly in view of the fact the Industrial Court agreed in revision that the order of the Labour Court that the first respondent hostel was, however, guilty of unfair labour practice under Item 1 (f) of the iv Schedule to the said Act of 1971 and that the first respondent had passed the order of termination with undue haste. However, the Industrial Court refused to give reinstatement with back wages to the petitioner on the ground that the first respondent was principally a hostel for working women numbering more than 150 and except few servants who were allowed to sleep in the kitchen, the hostel was essentially meant for women's welfare and in the circumstances respondent No. 1 should not be burdended with reinstatement and backwages which would have adverse effect on the working of the first respondent which was run by the co-operative society. It is true that the workman was discharged from service on November 14, 1984 and he refused to leave hostel and ultimately he was removed from service with effect from November 22, 1984. According to the Industrial Court, in the circumstances, reinstatement was not justified. In the circumstances, the first respondent was directed to pay to the workman wages in lieu of notice and earned wages offered to him under the termination letter dated November 14, 1984 and in addition six months wages by way of compensation as the relief in lieu of reinstatement.