B.N. Srikrishna, J. (Oral) - (1.) This writ petition, though styled as one under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, raises issues which can be conveniently disposed of by exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and I have done so accordingly.
(2.) By the present petition, the petitioner has impugned an order of the Labour Court, Bombay, dated 31st May, 1985, made in Complaint (ULP) No. 90 of 1982, under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(3.) The first respondent is the Proprietor of a Tailoring Establishment and the petitioner was working therein for about 9 years as a Pant Maker. His services came to be terminated orally on 11th February, 1980, by the employer. No reasons were assigned for such termination of service. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute under the provisions of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was referred to adjudication of the Labour Court and marked as Reference (IDA) No. 641 of 1980. An exparte award was made therein on 15th October, 1981, by which the Labour Court directed the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages. On 20th February, 1982, the first respondent moved an application, being Miscellaneous Application (IDA) No.28 of 1982, for setting aside the cx parse award. It also appears that he obtained stay of execution of the ex parse award pending the hearing and disposal of the application. On 27th December, 1981, the first respondent employer reinstated the petitioner but, however, he did not pay the back wages payable to the petitioner under the said award. The petitioner kept on demanding payment of hack wages, probably, to the annoyance of the first respondent. The first respondent kept advising the petitioner that he should give up his claim of hack wages flowing from the award dated 151h October, 1981. The petitioner rightly declined to accept this suggestion and pressed his claim. This led to deterioration of the relations between the first respondent and the petitioner. On 8th May, 1982, near about the pay day, the petitioner put his foot down and insisted that all amounts payable to him as hack wages must he promptly paid. This resulted in a show down during which it is alleged that the petitioner was abused by the first respondent and with the help of his other employees physically pushed the petitioner out of the establishment with an admonition that if he wants his job he should give in writing that he is giving up all claims of back wages arising under the ex parte award. The petitioner approached his Union and through the Union sent a notice dated 13th May, 1982, demanding reinstatement in service. The first respondent replied this notice by his letter dated 15th May, 1982, in which he denied the adverse allegations and maintained that all that happened on 8th May, 1982, was that as the petitioner had made some mistake in carrying out of his job for which he had been pulled up by the first respondent and cautioned to be more careful in future. It was alleged that the petitioner had become fed up, abused the first respondent and walked out of his shop. The first respondent further slated that if the petitioner was desirous of coming back to work, lie was welcome to do so provided he was prepared to work diligently, honestly and innocently (sic).;