Shivajirao Patil Nilangekar Sahakari SakharKarkhana Ltd. Ambulga (S) Bidar RoadNilanga, District Latur v. Dilip Ramchandra Bhosale

The petitioner assails the order rendered by the IndustrialCourt, Latur in Revision (ULP) No. 280 of 2004 dated 29.01.2007,which endorsed the order of the Labour Court, Latur, allowing the Complaint (ULP) No 50 of 1995 dated 02.07.2004, presented by the respondents under Section 28(1) read with Schedule IV, Item1(a), (b), (d), (f), and (g) of the Maharashtra Recognition of TradeUnions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, “MRTU and PULP Act”). 2 85-WP-4997-07.odt2.Complainants No. 1 and 2 were appointed as a Driver and Personal Assistant on 02.09.1992 and 11.02.1991, respectively. Both worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year before the petitioner-employer terminated their services on04.05.1995. This termination occurred without the mandatory notice or compensation in lieu of notice required under Section25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “Act”). Thecomplainants signed the muster roll on the final day, however, subsequently they were barred from attending their duties. Assuch, the complaint was presented before the Labour Court. Considering the claim and objections, the Labour Court allowed the complaint. Assailing the said order, the petitioner preferred revision petition before the Industrial Court, was dismissed, which is subject matter of the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the courts below failed to consider the complainants' absenteeism and that the assertion of termination is completely unfounded. Also argued that both courts ignored the material evidence indicating abandonment of service by the complainants, thereby committing an error of law by treating the severance of service as a violation of the Act. Hence, prayed to allow the petition.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned orders and submitted that a dispute 3 85-WP-4997-07.odtbetween the outgoing management and the incoming management committee resulted in the obstruction of services of the complainants, who were appointed by the predecessor committee, preventing them from discharging their duties. It is argued that this obstruction constitutes an unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV read with Section 28(1) of MRTU &PULP Act. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

After hearing litigating sides and perusing the record, it is evident the complainants completed 240 days of continuous service, bringing them under the protective ambit of Section 25Nof the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, the Labour Courtrightly held their summary dismissal to be an unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV. This finding of fact was arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence and was endorsed by the Industrial Court.

While challenging the finding of Labour Court, thepetitioner’s attempt that this Court shall re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence, an exercise that is impermissible while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basamma & Anr. v. Goparappa and others, (2026INSC 712), a High Court exercising its supervisory jurisdiction cannot transform itself into an appellate court to re-appreciate 4 85-WP-4997-07.odtevidence, well-reasoned findings of fact unless they are demonstrably perverse.

It is evident that the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the courts below do not suffer from any such infirmity. The sub-ordinate courts arrived at factual conclusions through a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, their concurrent findings warrant no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The submission put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner that reinstatement should not automatically be accompanied by an award of back wages, runs contrary to the verdict of the the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case Hindustan TinWorks Private Limited V. Employees of Hindustan TinWorks Private Limited reported in (1979) 2 SCC 80. TheApex Court observed that the payment of back wages involves adiscretionary element, it has to be dealt with, in the facts and circumstances of each case, that there exists a statutory sanction to award payment of full back wages in its entirety.

Therefore, the contention advanced by the petitioner fails to warrant consideration. It is well-settled that this Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the absence of material on record demonstrating a manifest jurisdictional error or patent illegality committed by the courts below. 5 85-WP-4997-07.odt10.In the absence of any material irregularity, perversity, or manifest illegality in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts regarding the unfair labour practices committed by the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the impugned orders do not warrant interference. There is no demonstrable jurisdictional error. Consequently, the petition lacks merit and does not warrant consideration.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

Rule is discharged.

No order as to costs. [SACHIN S. DESHMUKH] JUDGErrd