RAMACHANDRA VITHUJI KOTHARE Vs. INDUSTRIAL COURT NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges in this petition the orders of the Courts below passed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short "the Act").

(2.) The petitioner was employed as a conductor in the services of the respondent No. 2 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. It is not is dispute that he was a temporary employee. His services were terminated with effect from 24th September, 1976 by offering him one month's wages in lieu of one month's notice under the provisions of Regulation 61 of the Bombay State Transport Service Regulations (for short "the Regulations") framed by the respondent No. 2 Coporation under the provisions of S. 45 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. It is pertinent to notice at this stage that the respondent No. 2 Corporations is a statutory Corporation created under the provisions of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 and is "State" within Art. 12 of the Constitution of India and is, therefore, subject to the fundamental rights in Chapter III of the Constitution. Although the order of termination dated 24th September, 1976 did not disclose any reason therein for termination of services of the petitioner, the reason advanced on behalf of the respondent No. 2 for terminating services of the petitioner was that on or about 13th September, 1979, he was found in a state of intoxication, i.e. was under the influence of liquor and was unable to control himself and to attend to his duties properly. The evidence was led by both the parties before the Labour Court about the reasons for termination of services of the petitioner. The defence taken in the proceedings before the Labour Court by the petitioner was that he had some stomach trouble and had taken some medicine. However, the respondent No. 2 and relied upon the spot statement wherein he had admitted that he was under the influence of liquor at that time.

(3.) The learned Labour Court upheld the order of termination of services of the petitioner and rejected the application of the petitioner under Ss. 28 and 30 of the Act for declaring that the termination of his services amounted to an unfair labour practice, that it should be set aside and that the petitioner should be reinstated in service with backwages. However, the Labour Court directed that in addition to the notice pay an amount equal to one month's wages should be paid to the petitioner towards the retrenchment compensation as per the provisions of S. 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the I.D. Act), because according to the Labour Court the termination of services of the petitioner technically amounted to "retrenchment" within the definition of the said word given in S. 2(oo) of the said Act. The revision was preferred by the petitioner before the Industrial Court under S. 44 of the Act, which was, however, dismissed and the impugned order of the learned Labour Court was maintained. Being aggrieved by the orders of the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition in this Court.