Summary
The Supreme Court rejected the employee’s challenge concerning transfer and subsequent termination. Non-receipt did not establish that the proved termination letter was fictitious. Personal mala fides were not sustainable without impleading the accused officers, and the record did not establish legal malice in a contractually authorised transfer after long service at one station. The Industrial Court could not decide the termination dispute as merely incidental to transfer because that category lay exclusively with the Labour Court.
Issues
- Whether the transfer was a proved unfair labour practice, whether non-receipt made the termination fictitious, and whether the Industrial Court could determine termination as a connected issue.
Provisions considered
- Sections 5(d), 7 and 32; Schedule IV Items 1 and 3, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971The express allocation of termination complaints to the Labour Court was not displaced by the Industrial Court’s power over connected matters in a transfer complaint. (¶¶ 11, 22, 23)
Held
- The employer’s witness proved issuance and signatures on the termination letter, without the relevant challenge in cross-examination. The employee’s claim of non-receipt did not establish that the letter was fake or non-existent. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- Allegations of personal malice required impleading the persons concerned to permit an answer. The alleged conference participants were not joined individually, and no corresponding allegation was made against the officer issuing the transfer; transfer under the appointment terms was not mala fide merely because it occurred. (¶¶ 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20)
- No foundation for malice in law was established. Contractual transfer after nearly twenty years at Sagar to the company’s headquarters could not on these facts be treated as an act without lawful excuse. (¶¶ 16, 21)
- The statute expressly reserved Item 1 termination complaints to the Labour Court. Describing termination as a consequence of failure to join the transferred post did not confer jurisdiction on the Industrial Court under Section 32. (¶¶ 11, 22, 23)
Result
Appeal dismissed; no interference with the High Court order. Labour Court alone competent to decide the alleged unlawful-termination issue.