Chapter: 2.4.7 Labour Court in the M.R.T.U.P.U.L.P.

Labour Court

• The employee is certainly entitled to approach Labour Court and the it has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, when employee alleges that employer is indulging in, unfair labour practice set out in item 1 of Schedule IV with a view of discharge or dismiss employee.'
• The Colourable Exercise of the Employers Rights
• In the case,

Arun Apte
V
Arwind Pathak
1992 II CLR 162 (Bom. HC).

• the Unfair Labour Practice being under item 1(a) and (f) of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act '1971...there was some dispute between the first respondent employee and his employer the petitioner.
• The petitioner directed respondent to leave his premises.
• Service of respondent no. 1 was thereafter terminated.
• In a complaint for unfair labour practice, ...no evidence ...first respondent abandoned the service of the Petitioner.
• The service was thus illegally terminated, and items l(a), (b) and (f) of Sch IV were attracted and the relief of reinstatement with back wages was frightly allowed.
• The High Court observed, 'From the evidence of the first respondent it is clear that the petitioner terminated his services by an oral order and when that was done the first respondent 'was neither paid wages in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation and admittedly he had worked for more than 240 days in a year.
•The services of the first respondent ...illegally terminated.
• There is no evidence on record except the pleading of the petitioner that, the first respondent had abandoned services.
• I am- not persuaded to accept this contention of the petitioner in the absence of any credible and satisfactory evidence.
• The learned Labour Judge, was not wrong in holding that the services of first respondent were illegally terminated.'