PUSHPA Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court dated 20.1.1995 in Revision (ULPN) No. 334/1993. By the said decision, the Industrial Court dismissed the Revision preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner had filed Complaint before the Labour Court being Complaint (ULP) No. 610/ 1991 under section 28 read with Section 7 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, (for short 'the Act of 1971'), seeking direction against the respondent to cease and desist from committing unfair labour practice in respect of matters stated in the complaint and for relief of continuity of service of their predecessors by setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the Respondent on 11.8.1991 against their predecessor. The predecessor of the petitioner/ complainant was working as Driver with the Respondent-Corporation since 1977. He was dismissed for the alleged misconduct of absenteeism on 11th May 1991. Soon after that order, the predecessor of the petitioner expired on 25th May 1991. Before his death, the predecessors of the petitioner had already filed First Appeal before the first Appellate Authority -Divisional Controller, State Transport, Wardha on 20th May 1991. After his death, therefore, the petitioners being heirs and legal representatives of Mahadeorao Deoghare /original workman, not only took out the application in the pending First Appeal for bringing them on record as heirs and legal representatives of deceased workman/ appellant, but also proceeded to file Complaint before the Labor Court being Complaint (ULP) No. 610/1991 for the following reliefs :-

(2.) THE Labour Court, however, by its judgment and order dated 27th September, 1993, on analysing the complaint and the material on record, found that the petitioners who have filed the said Complaint were not covered by the definition of workman, whereas Section 28 of the Act of 1971 which provides for the procedure for dealing with the complaints relating to unfair labour practice stipulates that any Union or any employee or any employer or any Investigating Officer may file complaint before the Court competent to deal with such complaint. In other words, the remedy of complaint available under the State Act is limited to Union, employee, employer or Investigation Officer. The petitioners are not covered by any of this qualification. Therefore, they are not competent to pursue the remedy. This decision of the lower Court dated 27th September 1993 was put in issue before the Industrial Court by way of Revision. The Revisional Court by the impugned judgment has reiterated the same position and held that the petitioners had no locus to institute the complaint as filed. For, the petitioners were not covered under the definition of 'workman'. The Industrial Court has also found that it is not the case of the complainant that there exist any settlement between the Corporation and the Union whereby the legal representatives of the workman can pursue the remedy on their behalf, to challenge their termination or dismissal of their predecessor after his death. On this reasoning, the Industrial Court has dismissed the Revision Application.

(3.) SIGNIFICANTLY, the petitioners have already impleaded themselves as heirs and legal representatives of deceased Mahadeorao Deoghare in the pending First Appeal before the first Appellate Authority- State Transport, Wardha Division, Wardha. The relief claimed in the Complaint, in the event the petitioners succeed in the said First Appeal, would automatically be redressed. In other words, it is not a case as if the petitioners are rendered remediless.