CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2015) 04 BOM CK 0370

The Nandura Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs The Hon''ble Member, Nagpur and Others

Bombay High Court · Decided on 30 April 2015 · Citation: (2015) 6 ALLMR 145

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.K. Deshpande, J.
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 4891 of 2007

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 342 words

R.K. Deshpande, J.—Complaint ULPA No. 46 of 2000 challenging the termination of the respondent complainant from service with effect from 01.07.2000 was allowed by the Labour Court, holding unfair labour practice on the part of the petitioner under Item 1 (a) & (b) of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, directing reinstatement of the complainant with continuity in service, by an order dated 27.12.2005. This was the subject matter of challenge in Revision (ULP) No. 14 of 2006, which has been dismissed by the Industrial Court on 05.07.2007. Hence, this writ petition by the employer. Undisputedly, the employer came forward with a case that it was a punitive termination. Perusal of the order of termination dated 30.06.2000 also indicate that the termination was by way of punishment. The Labour Court set aside the termination on the ground that there was violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act. The employee had completed 240 days service preceding the date of retrenchment. The Industrial Court has confirmed this view.

2.

It is apparent that this was not the case of "retrenchment" as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as the termination was by way of punishment. Hence, the approach adopted by both the courts below as totally misdirected. The courts have not framed issues which are relevant for considering the case of dismissal of an employee from service by way of punishment. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts below cannot, therefore, be sustained. The same will have to be set aside with an order of remand. In the result, writ petition is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Labour Court on 27.12.2005 in Complaint ULPA No. 46 of 2000 and confirmed by the Industrial Court on 05.07.2007 in Revision (ULP) No. 14 of 2006 are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Labour Court to decide it afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made by this Court. No order as to cost.