JUDGMENT
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the order of the Industrial Court at Bombay dated January 22, 1987 in Revision application (ULP) No. 46 of 1986 by which the application preferred by the first respondent being women’s hostel came to be allowed and the order of the Labour Court dated July 28, 1986 in Complaint (ULP) No. 68 of 1985 came to be overruled and as a result, the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated January 22, 1987 passed by the Industrial Court has failed the present petition.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows :
(a) The petitioner herein was appointed as Head Cook as alleged on March 7, 1979 on monthly salary of Rs. 455/-. The first respondent is a women’s hostel situated at Opp. Municipal Prathamik Shala, 6, Township Colony, Tilak Nagar Chembur Bombay-89. The said hostel is run by co-operative society by the name Maharashtra Sahakari Udyogini Ltd. The said hostel is run in Bombay exclusively for the women. The inmates of the hostel at the relevant time in the year 1979 when the petitioner was appointed as a Head Cook were allowed to stay in the rooms provided to the inmates and also provided with breakfast, lunch and dinner on extra charges. The lunch was provided only on Sundays and Public Holidays. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1979 there were 20 employees working in the said hostel. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1979 there was one employee who was assisting the petitioner in his work as Head Cook.
(b) In 1984, according to the petitioner, the strength of the workmen was reduced from 20 to 11 and the assistant who was helping the petitioner in his work was also removed. It is also the case of the petitioner that the assistants from other section were also removed in 1984.
(c) On November 14, 1984 the first respondent hostel issued a notice declaring that the dinner facility for the inmates was being removed. It is the case of the petitioner that in the guise of the said notice the workers were to be victimised, whereas according to the first respondent, the said notice was issued on account of labour problems.
(d) In 1984, the petitioner was required to cook for hundred inmates. On account of the said notice dated November 14, 1984, according to the first respondent, a number of workmen came to be reduced.
(e) By notice dated November 15, 1984 the first respondent declared closure of the mess and the services of the petitioner, according to the petitioner, came to be terminated orally. According to the petitioner, the said notice of closure constituted an illegal lockout. Accordingly on November 22, 1984 complain (ULP) No. 1397 of 1984 was filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge the lock-out.
(f) On the same day i.e. on November 22, 1984, ad interim order was passed by the competent Court restraining the first respondent from taking any steps to evict the petitioner from the service.
(g) By an order dated November 25, 1984 the services of the petitioner came to be terminated.
(h) In February 1985 the present Complaint (ULP) No. 68 of 1985 was filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge the order of termination dated November 25, 1984 under Item 1(a), (b) and (f) of Schedule IV to the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour practices Act, 1971. By the said complaint, the petitioner sought to challenge the order of termination.
(i) In the meantime, according to the petitioner since the mess of the hostel was restarted, the petitioner withdrew the earlier complaint being (ULP) No. 1397 of 1984.
(j) By an order dated July 28, 1986 the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the first respondent had committed unfair labour practice and the first respondent had terminated the services as and by way of victimisation and in the circumstances the Labour Court declared that the first respondent was guilty of unfair labour practice under Item 1(a), (b) and (d) of Schedule IV to the said Act of 1971. As regards Item 1(f), the Labour Court concluded that the order of termination was illegal and bad in law as the same was effected with undue haste and as a result it was arbitrary and bad in law and accordingly the order of termination came to be set aside.
(k) Against the said order of the Labour Court dated July 28, 1986 Revision Application (ULP) No. 46 of 1986 came to be filed by the first respondent before the Industrial Court at Bombay.
(l) The Industrial Court by the impugned order dated January 22, 1987 came to the conclusion that the first respondent hostel being Women’s Hostel run by the Co-operative Society was not bound to reinstate the petitioner particularly in view of the fact that the Labour Court had not considered the relevant facts with regard to certain orders passed by the Matrons of the hostel and that certain aspects of the case were not properly appreciated by the Labour Court.
3. It is necessary to go into details as the said order passed by the Revisional Court particularly in view of the fact the Industrial Court agreed in revision that the order of the Labour Court that the first respondent hostel was, however, guilty of unfair labour practice under Item 1(f) of the IV Schedule to the said Act of 1971 and that the first respondent had passed the order of termination with undue haste. However, the Industrial Court refused to give reinstatement with back wages to the petitioner on the ground that the first respondent was principally a hostel for working women numbering more than 150 and except few servants who were allowed to sleep in the kitchen, the hostel was essentially meant for women’s welfare and in the circumstances Respondent No. 1 should not be burdended with reinstatement and backwages which would have adverse effect on the working of the first respondent which was run by the co-operative society. It is true that the workman was discharged from service on November 14, 1984 and he refused to leave hostel and ultimately he was removed from service with effect from November 22, 1984. According to the Industrial Court, in the circumstances, reinstatement was not justified. In the circumstances, the first respondent was directed to pay to the workman wages in lieu of notice and earned wages offered to him under the termination letter dated November 14, 1984 and in addition six months wages by way of compensation as the relief in lieu of reinstatement.
4. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the view that the Industrial Court has correctly appreciated the fact with regard to termination of service in undue haste under Item 1(f) of Schedule IV to the said Act of 1971. The Industrial Court has correctly awarded monetary benefits to the petitioner instead of reinstatement particularly looking to the nature of the work carried out by the first respondent hostel. I do not see any reason to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with regard to the approach adopted by the Industrial Court. However, Mr. Ganguli, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, very fairly stated that the petitioner has been out of service from November 14, 1984. Mr. Ganguli has claimed the amount of Rs. 37,000/- by way of back wages for 90 months from January 1, 1985 upto June 30, 1992 at the rate of 400/- per month in addition to Rs. 13,000/- as compensation calculated at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. Mr. Asthana, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent, on the other hand submitted that the first respondent as of date has approximately 150 inmates who are working and there is one cook who is assisting the inmates and Matrons and it would not be in the interest of justice to impose huge liability of Rs. 50,000/- particularly as the first respondent is not a very big industry or commercial establishment which can afford to pay such a huge amount.
5. In the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if in addition to the notice pay and earned wages ordered to be paid to the petitioner by the Judgment and Order of the Industrial Court dated January 22, 1987 the petitioner is paid on amount of Rs. 35,000/- towards back wages and compensation in lieu of reinstatement in addition to notice pay and earned wages as directed by the Industrial Court. The said amount of Rs. 35,000/- will be paid in two equal instalments. The first instalment of 50% of Rs. 35,000/- will be paid on or before July 15, 1992. The second instalment will be paid on or before August 15, 1992. The amount of notice pay and earned wages ordered to be paid by the Industrial Court will be paid within two weeks from to-day, by first respondent.
6. With the above directions, rule is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
7. Certified copy, if applied for, to be furnished out of turn expeditiously.