RAJENDRA BABURAO GHOLAP SHRI CHHATRAPATI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED Vs. DATTATRAYA KASHINATH JAMDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of the Labour Court, Pune, dated 28th July, 1989 made in Criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 30 of 1988 and the order of the Industrial Court dated 7th June, 1990 made in Revision Application (ULP) No. 37 of 1989, both under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) THE respondent filed a complaint, Criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 30 of 1988, before the Third Labour Court, Pune, alleging inter alia therein that the present petitioners had committed an offence under section 48 of the Act and praying that they be punished in accordance with law. It appears that though a statement of verification was recorded on 27th September, 1988, the record does not show that it was done after administering oath to the respondent complainant, nor does it show that it was made before the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court. Nonetheless, the Labour Court appears to have issued process therein to the petitioners calling upon them to appear in person before the Court to show cause why proper action under section 48 of the Act should not be taken against them.

(3.) THE petitioners filed application before the Labour Court and pointed out that the process had been issued without application of mind in that the complaint was not verified on oath before the Labour Court. By the impugned order dated 28th July, 1989, the Labour Court was of the view that the record indicated that it could be clearly said that there was nothing in writing that the said statement was made on oath, nor was there any endorsement of the Presiding Officer below the statement that it was recorded before him. The Labour Court held that these irregularities were of technical nature and for this the entire proceedings cannot be vitiated. In this view of the matter, the Labour Court over-ruled the objection and the prayer made for discharging the petitioners.