Chapter: 2.4.8 Petitioner's Service in the M.R.T.U.P.U.L.P.

Petitioner's Service

• In the case,

Madlzukar Mahadik
V_
Indian Express Newspapers!
1992 I CLR 1001 (Bom. HC)

the Unfair Labour Practice being under item 1(b) of Sch. IV of' the MRTU and PYLP Act' 1971, it was seen that petitioner's service was terminated without enquiry.
• In the complaint under above items of Schedule IV to the Act, the petitioner led no evidence.
• Since the burden of proof was on the complainant and since he led no evidence, the contentions, unfair labour practice under above clauses were rejected.
• The High Court observed that, 'In this case, after filing ,the complaint the petitioner had led no evidence whatsoever and since the onus is on the complaint, the petitioner to prove the' allegations made in the complaint, and since he was not examined any witnesses or led any evidence to that effect, without going in further details, I am rejecting the aforesaid contentions.'

Malafide Transfer

• In the case,

Maharashtra Gen. Kamgar Union
V
All India Handloom Fabrics
1991 II CLR 293 (Bom. HC)

• the Unfair Labour Practice being under item 3 of Sch. IV 9£ ' MRTU and PULP Act' 1971..petitioner filed complaint of Unfair Labour Practice alleging Unfair Labour Practice under item 1 of Sch. IV of the Act.
• The allegation ...respondent has no power to transfer the petitioner.
• Lack of legality to an act or omission amounts to legal, malafides and that would be covered by Item 3 of Sch. IV.
• The High Court observed that, 'to recapitulate, the petitioner succeeds on only one ground, to wit, the power of transfer being violative of Sec. 2A(1) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
• Lack of legality to an act or omission amounts to legal mala tides and that would be covered by item 3 of Sch. IV of MRTU and PULP Act' 1971.'