HARIGANGA SECURITY SERVICES LTD Vs. MEMBER INDUSTRIAL COURT MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition No. 1858 of 1987 filed by the employer, Hariganga Security Services Limited, nagpur, is directed against the order reinstatement of respondent No. 2 passed by the Industrial court while setting aside the order of the Labour Court, holding that the respondent No. 2 had committed an unfair labour practice. Writ Petition No. 288 of 1987 is filed by Subhash Meshram an employee against Hariganga Security Services Limited against the order passed by the industrial Court refusing to award back wages while ordering his reinstatement.

(2.) IT would be convenient to refer to the parties as arrayed in Writ Petition No. 1858 of 1987. The respondent No. 2 Subhash Meshram was employed as a security guard with the petitioner from December 1983. He was also the Secretary of the Union of Workers of Hariganga Security services Limited. A call for a strike was given by the Union and the strike commenced from 23rd October, 1984. At the intervention of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, the strike was withdrawn on 9th November, 1984 and the employees reported for duty on 10th November, 1984. The petitioner applied to the Labour Court for declaring the strike illegal and it was numbered as Reference No. 462 of 1984. The second Labour Court held the strike to be illegal on account of contravention of Section 24 (1) (a) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ("p. U. L. P. Act" for short ). After these proceedings were over, the respondent No. 2 came to be charge-sheeted on account of illegal strike on 10th May, 1985 under clause 24 (b) of the Model Standing Orders under the industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The Enquiry Officer found the respondent no. 2 guilty of an unfair labour practice under clause 24 (b) of the Model Standing Orders and in pursuance thereof the petitioner dismissed the respondent No. 2 on 2nd August, 1985. The respondent No. 2 challenged his dismissal before the Labour Court in P. U. L. P. Case No. 404 of 1985. The Labour Court dismissed the complaint holding that the enquiry was fair and proper and no unfair labour practice was committed by the petitioner. A revision application was preferred to the Industrial Court being Revision Application No. 45 of 1986. The Industrial court by the order dated 14th October, 1986 took the view that as the strike was withdrawn by the union, albeit before the declaration that it was illegal, in view of the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 25, the strike would be deemed not to be illegal for the purposes of the Unfair labour Practices Act. The Industrial Court found that the charge framed against the respondent no. 2 resting on the illegal strike could not, therefore, be supported. Holding that the dismissal was bad the Industrial Court directed reinstatement of the respondent No. 2, but refused to award back wages.

(3.) THE employer Hariganga Security Services has challenged the order of reinstatement passed by the Industrial Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1858 of 1987 while the denial of back wages has been challenged by the employee Subhash by Writ Petition No. 288 of 1987.