(1.) The Petitioners challenge the order of the Labour Court as well as the industrial Court in revision. Both the Courts have held that the Petitioners have committed an unfair labour practice under Item 1 (a) , (b) , (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The petitioners have been directed to reinstate the respondent-workman with continuity of service and full backwages and attendant benefits w. e. f. 28.1.1994.
(2.) The facts in this case are not disputed. The Petitioners are a transport company engaged in business of transportation. They had employed respondent No. l in 1990 as a Traffic Manager. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent remained absent on 15.10. 1994. He continued to remain absent thereafter despite the Petitioners' letter calling upon him to resume duties. A complaint was filed by Respondent no. l being Complaint (ULP) No. 92 of 1994 before the Labour Court. The Respondent- workman contended that the Petitioners had committed an unfair labour practice under l (a) , (b) , (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, 'mrtu and PULP Act') by terminating his services on 28.1.1994. The complaint was resisted by the Petitioners by filing their written statement. The Petitioners contended that the respondent was not a workman as defined under section 2 (s) of the industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, was not entitled to prosecute the complaint. According to the Petitioners, he was employed as a Traffic manager and not as a senior clerk as contended by the Respondent and, therefore, the Labour court had no jurisdiction to decide the complaint.
(3.) Evidence was led before the labour Court. The Labour Court held that the respondent was a workman as defined under section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act r/w 3 (5) of the MRTU and PULP Act. On appreciating the evidence, it was found by the labour Court that no appointment letter was issued to the Respondent. It was also brought on record in the evidence that the muster register for the year 1990 was missing from the office. The Labour Court did not accept the case of the Petitioners that the workman had abandoned his service. In these circumstances, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the services of the respondent were wrongly terminated and that the petitioners had removed the name of the respondent from the muster rolls. The version of the respondent was accepted and the Labour court directed reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages with all attendant benefits.