M/S. Rajdhani Hotel Thou Mrs Geeta ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 2444 Bom

                                                                   64-WP3241-2023.DOC

                                                                                 Santosh
                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 3241 OF 2023

SANTOSH               M/s. Rajdhani Hotel                                ...Petitioner
SUBHASH
KULKARNI                                  Versus
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
                      The State of Maharashtra and Ors.                ...Respondents
KULKARNI
Date: 2023.03.17
19:50:49 +0530
                      Mr. Aditya Aklekar, for the Petitioner.
                      Mr. P. P. Pujari, AGP for the State/Respondent No.1.

                                                   CORAM:     N. J. JAMADAR, J.

                                                   DATED :    14th MARCH, 2023
                      ORDER:-

1. This petition takes exception to a judgment and order

dated 4th May, 2022 passed by the learned Member, Industrial

Court, Pune, in Complaint (ULP) No.62 of 2019 declaring that

the petitioner - respondent therein had committed unfair labour

practice within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the

Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of

Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ("the MRTU & PULP Act") and

directing the respondent to allow the respondent - complainant

therein to resume the duties with backwages from the date of

the complaint.

2. The respondent - complainant was working as a

watchman-cum-room boy with the petitioner since the year

2005. The complainant alleged that on 16th September, 2018 the

64-WP3241-2023.DOC

respondent restrained the complainant from resuming the

duties. Thus a complaint of unfair labour practice within the

meaning of Item 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP

Act was lodged.

3. The learned Member, Industrial Court, recorded the

evidence of the complainant. The respondent - petitioner,

herein, did not participate in the proceedings. Neither the

evidence adduced by the complainant was challenged by way of

cross-examination nor evidence was adduced in the rebuttal.

The learned Member, Industrial Court, thus returned a finding

that the employer failed to prove that the complainant

abandoned the services on his own. It was concluded that the

complainant's services were apparently terminated on account

of the change in the management, which was no reason to

restrain the complainant from resuming his duty. Petitioner

was thus held to have indulged in unfair labour practice as

envisaged by Item 9 of Schedule IV. Consequential relief of

direction to allow the complainant to resume the duties and pay

backwages was granted. Industrial Court, however, did not find

any evidence in proof of unfair labour practice within the

meaning of Item 10 of the Schedule IV.

64-WP3241-2023.DOC

4. Being aggrieved the petitioner has invoked the writ

jurisdiction of this Court.

5. I have heard Mr. Aklekar, the learned Counsel for the

petitioner.

6. An endeavour was made to draw home the point that the

impugned judgment and order warrants interference in exercise

of writ jurisdiction. I do not find any justifiable reason to do so.

7. Evidently, the learned Member, Industrial Court, had

recorded a justifiable finding based on evidence that the

complainant had been working with the respondent since the

year 2005 and the defence that the complainant voluntarily

abandoned the services was not at all borne out by the material

on record. Refusal to participate in the proceedings and

adduce evidence in defence that the complainant never worked

under the new management was at the peril of the respondent.

In the absence of cogent evidence, it would be difficult to agree

with the submission on behalf of the petitioner that the

complainant left the services on his own volition.

8. In the circumstances, there is no reason to exercise extra

ordinary writ jurisdiction.

9. Hence, the petition stands dismissed.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]