MUNICIPAL COUNCIL WARDHA Vs. SHANTABAI BAIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Municipal Council, Wardha served a notice dated 3rd August, 1981 terminating the services of the respondent-employee with effect from 5th September, 1981. The respondent Smt. Shantabai was in employment of the Municipal Council as a peon. The respondent challenged the termination by instituting a complaint before the Industrial Court, Nagpur and also obtained an ex parte stay of the said order of termination. This ex parte order was, however, vacated by the Industrial Court, Nagpur on 20th April, 1982 and thereafter on 22nd April, 1982 the respondent was removed from the service. Whereupon the respondent filed a complaint before the Labour Court, Nagpur alleging that the termination of the services of the respondent were illegal and it amounts to unfair labour practices falling under Item No. 1(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The respondent alleged in the complaint that while terminating her services, the employees junior to the respondent were continued in the employment and her removal from services was by way of victimisation for having participated in a Hunger Strike. The respondent claimed a declaration that the Municipal Council, Wardha had engaged in unfair labour practices and accordingly sought a direction for being reinstated in service and payment of full back wages.

(2.) The petitioner-Municipal Council resisted the complaint inter alia contending that the appointment of the respondent was not in accordance with the Maharashtra Municipalities Act inasmuch as no sanction was obtained for the post she was holding. It was also the defence of the petitioner-Municipal Council that on account of surplus staff having been appointed by the President of the Municipal Council, Wardha without obtaining proper sanction, the Municipal Council was superseded by the Government and the Administrator was appointed who retrenched the staff which was found to be surplus and also without sanction. It was also submitted that while effecting retrenchment, principle of last come, first go was strictly adhered to. The petitioner Municipal Council hence denied having victimised the respondent or having indulged in unfair labour practices.

(3.) The Labour Court, Nagpur by his order dated 29th October, 1984 found that the order of termination was not in accordance with the provisions of sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as the Central Act, and accordingly declared the termination of the services of the respondent by way of unfair labour practices. The respondent was also directed to be reinstated in service with payment of full back wages from the date of her actual removal. This order was challenged by the petitioner-Municipal Council in revision application filed before the Industrial Court, Nagpur, who, after hearing the parties, found that there was no contravention of section 25-F of the Central Act but maintained the order in so far as section 25-G of the Act was concerned. In view of this finding the revision filed by the petitioner-Municipal Council came to be dismissed. Both these orders are hence impugned by the petitioner-Municipal Council in this petition.