CRICKET CLUB OF INDIA Vs. BALJIT SHYAM MS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Respondents waive service. Petition heard forthwith. The petitioners herein have approached this Court in exercise or' its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to impugn the order dated September 25, 1997 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in Revision Application (ULP) No. 28 of 1997 in Complaint (ULP) No. 205 of 1995. By the impugned order the Industrial Court, Mumbai, was pleased to set aside the order of the Labour Court dated November 30, 1996 dismissing the complaint tiled by the Respondent No. 1 against the petitioners under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act for the sake of brevity ). The Respondent No. 1 approached the Labour Court alleging an act of unfair labour practice on the part of the petitioners herein, in terminating the services without holding an enquiry or complying with the other provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is therefore, alleged that the petitioners had committed unfair labour practice under Items 1 (a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. It is an admitted position that no inquiry has been conducted against the Respondent No. 1 who initially joined the services of the petitioners on 3 May 19, 1993 as a House Keeper. She was thereafter confirmed with effect from August 20, 1993 and her services were terminated on May 8, 1995. It is also an admitted position that no statutory dues under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act was paid to the Respondent No, 1 at the time of termination of her services.

(2.) THE petitioners raised a preliminary issue; contending that the Respondent No. 1 was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such the complaint was not maintainable.

(3.) IN the written statement the petitioners contended that the duties of the Respondent No. 1 was entirely of a Supervisory nature as she was responsible for looking after the up-keep and maintenance of Club House; to take all necessary steps required to be taken to avoid complaints on that score, to train the hamals working under the House Keeper for the upkeep and maintenance of the rooms and various other duties as of a Supervisor. The petitioners thereafter denied that the services of the Respondent No. 1 were illegally terminated. It is pointed out that the termination was simple termination and the reasons were spelt out by the petitioners in the letter itself. It is pointed out that the termination was without any aspersion and/or allegation of whatsoever nature.