LAWS(BOM)-2009-8-107

A ONE PAPER INDUSTRIES Vs. SUBHASH GANPATRAO JADHAV

Decided On August 14, 2009
A ONE PAPER INDUSTRIES Appellant
V/S
SUBHASH GANPATRAO JADHAV Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are filed by the same employer and its management against two attendants/labourers, who are the brothers and who have filed two ULP complaints bearing Nos. 6 and 7 of 1994 under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1966 ("MRTU & PULP Act" for brevity.) by which they challenged oral termination of their services by the petitioner. Learned Judge, Labour Court, Latur, who decided the said two complaints by common judgment dated 19.4.1995, came to a conclusion that there was unfair labour practice indulged into by the employer and they had illegally terminated both the employees with effect from 1.1.1994. The learned Judge, therefore, directed reinstatement of both the employees with back wages and continuity of service. The said judgment is further confirmed by learned Member, Industrial Court, Solapur, in two revision i.e. Revision (ULP) Nos. 40 and 41 of 1995 by common judgment delivered on 10.7.1996.

(2.) The facts giving rise to these two writ petitions are that respondents in both the writ petitions were working as attendants/ labourers in petitioner paper mill situated at Latur. Subhash, respondent in Writ Petition No. 4472 of 1996, joined services with petitioner paper mill in the year 1982 and was getting consolidated pay of Rs. 1300 per month; whereas Maroti, respondent No. 4473 of 1996, joined his services with petitioner-paper mill in the year 1985 and was getting consolidated salary of Rs. 1265 per month. It is the case of both the respondents that they had rendered continuous service from the date of their employment and without any show cause notice or paying compensation under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, their services were orally terminated from 1.7.1994. They were removed in haste in order to create terror in employees and thus unfair labour practice is indulged into by the writ petitioner and hence, they may be reinstated with back wages and continuity of service.

(3.) Identical written statements are filed by present petitioner in both the complaints and it is the case of the present petitioner that the work of both the employees, who are brothers, was not satisfactory. They used to remain absent from duty without permission. They used to sleep while on duty. They were not attending the work in time. They were creating terror in the minds of fellow-workers. They were not attending night duties. It is further stated that once or twice the respondents were removed but since they apologized, they were again taken back on duty. On 25.12.1993, both the respondents Maroti and Subhash went to Anchor Industry belonging to same employer and which is at a distance of 100 meters from the factory of the present petitioner. At Anchor Industry, he beat one Giridhar Birajdar and threw him on machine, but only because of timely intervention, life of Giridhar Birajdar was saved. It is also submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that respondents Subhash and Maroti gave threats of killing to Mahadu Devade and Kisan Chaubhe and they also abused Bhimrao Lombre and Vishnu Chavan. It is further stated that after the incident that took place on 25.12.1993, petitioner No. 2 informed the owner of petitioner No. 1 who was then at Bombay, about misconduct of the respondents and they decided to talk with Labour Officer and begin enquiry, but the respondents came to know of the same and they left the service. The petitioners asked the respondents to join the duties but they refused. It is further stated that so far as respondent Maroti is concerned, he was running an autorickshaw and was earning Rs. 100/- per day and as far as respondent Subhash is concerned, he is employed in a trading company at Latur and getting Rs. 60 to Rs. 70 per day. Under these circumstances, writ petitioner contended before the Labour Court that there is no unfair labour practice on its part and, therefore, both the applications/complaints of the complainants be dismissed.