Chapter: 2.4.6 Discharge, Dismissal and Prevention in the M.R.T.U.P.U.L.P.

Discharge, Dismissal and Prevention

• In the case,

Ashok Vishnu Kate
V
M. R. Bhope
1992 I CLR 531 (Born. HC) (DB)

• the Unfair Labour Practice being under item 1 of Sch. .IV and Section 28 of the MRTU- and PULP Act' 1971, it was seen that, whether Court can entertain complaint of an employee under item 1 of Schedule IV before actual order of discharge or dismissal is passed.
• The High Court observed that, ' It is well settled rule of interpretation that, Court, should be extremely slow in holding that the jurisdiction of the Court is ousted.
• Once as employee establishes ...employer has indulged in unfair labour practice leading to the discharge or dismissal from the employment, then Court cannot close doors and interpretation that though there is wrong committed by employer, remedy is not available till wrong reaches it's ultimate, in order of dismissal cannot be accepted.'
• It was observed that, 'The claim of the management that unfair labour practices as set out in item 1 of Schedule IV come into existence only on discharge or dismissal of an employee cannot be accepted.
• It is not every discharge or dismissal of employee which amounts to unfair labour practice, but it is unfair labour practice if it is arrived at, by resorting to the methods which are set out in item l(a) to (f).
• The unfair labour practices contemplated by item 1 are not mere discharge or dismissal, but by adopting it the practices which are set, out in the item; it is therefore clear that, the unfair labour practice on the part of, the employer precedes the actual order of it.
• The order of dismissal or discharge is merelythe culmination of the Unfair Labour Practice indulged.
• The provisions of the Act, were enacted not only merely to provide 'remedy or to penalize the employer for indulging in unfair labour practice but also to provide; machinery for prevention of unfair labour practice.
• To accede to the submission of the management that unfair labor practice comes into existence only when employee is discharged or dismissed would lead to unusual results.
• An employer may claim ...he would indulge in unfair labor practice like conducting a departmental enquiry by falsely implicating an employee in a criminal case on false or in utter disregard of principles of natural justice and in spite of unfair labor practice he will have no remedy until he decides to discharge or dismiss employee.
• He cannot be made to wait for seeking relief till order of discharge or dismissals passed.
• He, on discharge or dismissal would lose employment and source of livelihood and the employee may subsequently get relief after several years.
• The Legislature enacted the provisions of the Act with a view to ensure... the employer is 'not permitted to indulge in unfair labour practice leading to discharge or dismissal and the Labour Court can certainly prevent him from undertaking unfair labour practice which will lead to the discharge or dismissal of the employee.