MARUTI NARSINGRAO LADDE Vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 17.12.2004 in Revision (ULPN) No. 49/2004 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Bhandara, confirming the order of the Labour Court, Bhandara dated 29.9.2003 in Criminal Complaint (ULPA) No.22/2003.

(2.) In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to set out the facts:- Ashok Leyland United Employees' Union is a Representative Union under the provisions of Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 for the local area of tahsil Lakhni, district Bhandara for Engineering Industry. A manufacturing concern of M/s Ashok Leyland Limited ( a public limited company under the Companies Act, 1956) is situated in the said local area. The said Representative Union filed Complaint (ULPN) No. 729/2000 before the Industrial Court, Nagpur against Ashok Leyland Limited under Section 28 of the MRTU and PULP Act alleging unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the said Act. Relief was claimed in respect of 53 persons enlisted in the Annexure. The name of first respondent herein appears at Sr.No.20 in the said Annexure. An application under Section 30 (2) of the said Act for interim relief was also moved. The sole respondent viz. Ashok Leyland Limited filed its written statement opposing the complaint as well as the application for interim relief. On 27.9.2000 a joint pursis was filed by the complainant Union and the respondent Company. On the basis of the said pursis, an application for interim relief was disposed of by the Industrial Court in terms of the pursis. Subsequently the complainant Union filed another application for interim relief on 8.1.2001. The Company filed its reply. Thereafter on 29.3.2001 the Company filed pursis. The Industrial Court disposed of the application for interim relief by an order dated 27.4.2001.

(3.) In terms of interim orders no.1 and 2, the present respondent no.1 was employed by the company from time to time for specified periods. During his short tenure as temporary employee, respondent no.1 herein was charge sheeted twice and warning was given to him. At the end of his tenure of temporary employment, he was discontinued by the Company. He was not given temporary employment thereafter by the Company on account of his poor performance.