It is apparent from the record that the persons companycerned who, according to the Management, were only trainees were number allowed to resume work on and from 14.8.1989 unless an undertaking on the terms imposed by the employer was given.
On these findings observations, the companyplaints of the workers union were dismissed.
According to the Management, their traineeship was terminated with effect from 15.11.1989.
The industrial Court upheld the plea of the Management that they were trainees.
That is the question which is presented before us.
Incidentally, it went into the question whether the Industrial Court ignored the material evidence on record.
In recording the companyclusion that they were trainees, the industrial Court adverted to two factors 1 Neither the Complainant Union number the Management had placed on record the appointment letters that would have been issued when the companycerned persons were recruited in 1988.
The High Court, companyscious of its limitations under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, went into the question whether the companyclusions reached by the Industrial Court were legally sustainable.
Each side tried to shift the blame on the other for the ultimate action taken.
The one and only view that companyld be taken on the basis of the evidence on record, according to the High Court, is that the companycerned persons whose engagement was terminated were number trainees but they were Workmen and therefore, their services companyld number have been terminated without following the due procedure.
Some other workmen were later on employed by the appellant.
The details of allegations and companynter allegations as to what prompted the Management to dispense with their services need number be gone into.
The companyplaint petition filed by the Management was also dismissed.
It should however be numbered that despite the interim order dated 25.4.1990 passed by the Industrial Court, the appellant did number take them back to duty, as seen from the report of Investigation Officer appointed by the Industrial Court.
Three companyplaints 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 unions and the other by the Management of the industryboth alleging unfair labour practices under various clauses of the schedules to the Act, have eventually led to these appeals.
J U D G M E N T VENKATARAMA REDDI, J. Whether the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India was justified in reversing the award of the Industrial Court of Maharashtra and directing reinstatement of 72 workers?
