TMI Blog1989 (10) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e us. 2. Three complaints filed before the industrial Court under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (for short 'the Act')--two of them by the workers union and the other by the Management of the industry--both alleging unfair labour practices under various clauses of the schedules to the Act, have eventually led to these appeals. 3. It is apparent from the record that the persons concerned (Who, according to the Management, were only trainee) were not allowed to resume work on and from 14.8.1989 unless an undertaking on the terms imposed by the employer was given. According to the Management, their 'traineeship' was terminated with effect from 15.11.1989. Some oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gular nature of work, would not by itself make them workmen . Then, the Court observed that a trainee is not equivalent to a workman unless there is sufficient evidence of existence of employer-employee relationship . The Industrial Court ultimately held that the Management's action terminating the training programme resulting in their unemployment from 14.8.1989 cannot confer on them the right to resume work and claim back wages. 5. On these findings/observations, the complaints of the workers' union were dismissed. The complaint petition filed by the Management was also dismissed. 6. The High Court, conscious of its limitations under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, went into the question whether the conclusion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtiorari. The High Court had rightly perceived the patent illegality in the impugned award warranting interference in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The High Court is right in pointing out that the material evidence especially the admissions of the witness examined on behalf of the Management were not considered at all. Moreover, the conclusions reached are wholly perverse and do not reasonably follow from the evidence on record. For instance, the fact that no appointment letters were issued or filed does not possibly lead to the conclusion that the Management's version must be true. Similarly, if the workers' unions had taken the stand that ante-dated appointment letters were issued describing the employees as trainees after th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of the Management's witness that in June-July, 1989, the Company did not have any permanent workmen and all the persons employed were trainees. It would be impossible to believed that the entire production activity was being carried on with none other than the so-called trainees. If there were trainees, there should have been trainers too. The Management evidently came forward with a false plea dubbing the employees/workmen as trainees so as to resort to summary termination and deny the legitimate benefits. On the facts and evidence brought on record, the conclusion was inescapable that the appellant-employer resorted to unfair labour practice. There would have been travesty of justice if the High Court declined to interfere with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
