Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.17 seconds)Section 44 in The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Colour-Chem Limited vs A.L. Alaspurkar & Ors on 5 February, 1998
4. Shri Khan, learned Counsel has contended that the petitioner retired within one year of his reinstatement as per order of Industrial Court and he lost advantage of his earlier service and could not therefore got the terminal benefits like pension or gratuity. He states that the learned Member of Industrial Court having found the misconducts to be minor or technical, could not have imposed such punishment upon the petitioner. He states that this punishment substituted by the Industrial Court is shockingly disproportionate. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Colour-Chem Limited v. A.L. Alaspurkar reported at , in support.
Workmen Of Messrs Firestone Tyre ... vs Management & Others (With Connected ... on 6 March, 1973
10. Learned senior counsel for the respondents was right when she contended that this being a labour welfare legislation liberal construction should be placed on the relevant provisions of the Act. She rightly invited our attention to paragraph 41 of the Report of the aforesaid case in this connection. She also invited our attention to a decision of this Court in the case of The Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Limited v. The Management especially the observations made in para 35 of the Report. It has been observed therein that if two constructions are reasonable possible to be placed on the section, it follows that the construction which furthers the policy and object of the Act and is more beneficial to the employee, has to be preferred. But it is further observed in the very said paragraph that there is another canon of interpretation that a Statute or for that matter even a particular section has to be interpreted according to its plain words and without doing violence to the language used by the legislature. In our view, Clause (g) of Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act is not reasonably capable of two constructions. Only one reasonable construction is possible on the express language of Clause (g), namely, that it seeks to cover only those types of unfair labour practices where minor misconducts or technical misconducts have resulted in dismissal or discharge of delinquent workmen and such punishment in the light of the nature of misconduct or past record of the delinquent is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges of minor misconduct or charges of technical misconduct held proved against the delinquent. One and only subject-matter of Clause (g) is the misconduct of minor or technical character. The remaining parts of the clause do not indicate any separate subject-matter like the major misconduct. But they are all adjuncts and corollaries or appendages of the principal subject, namely, minor or technical misconduct which in given set of cases may amount to resulting in shockingly disproportionate punishment if they are followed by discharge or dismissal of the delinquent. The first point, therefore, will have to be answered in the negative in favour of the appellant and against the respondent-delinquents.
1