Case Details: Ad Films Valas vs. Sharad Mirashi - [2026] 185 taxmann.com 404 (HC-Bombay)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Amit Borkar, J.
-
Suresh Pakale, Sr. Adv., Nilesh Desai & Zahid Butt for the Petitioner.
-
Ms Samiksha Kanani & Ms Gayatri Naik for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the Respondent-employee filed a complaint of unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions (MRTU) & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (PULP) Act against the petitioners-employer (a film production establishment registered under the Shops and Establishments Act).
He stated he joined as peon in 1980, was promoted to office assistant in 1993, remained on leave due to his wife’s kidney ailment, resumed work, demanded unpaid wages for June–July 2012, and alleged that after a dispute with petitioner No. 2 he was orally terminated with effect from late August 2012 without notice or due procedure, with non-compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act; he sought reinstatement with back wages.
During pendency, on an interim application, the Labour Court directed the petitioners to permit the respondent to report for duty and to pay wages in accordance with attendance pending the complaint. The Labour Court recorded the absence of a show cause notice and domestic enquiry, noted non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, and that the complainant’s material remained unchallenged as notices issued to petitioners were refused. Further, it also considered the employee’s personal circumstances while assessing the balance of convenience.
Petitioners moved applications before the Labour Court to set aside the interim order and sought review. The Labour Court rejected the review application. The petitioners thereafter filed a revision before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court dismissed the revision, noting that it was delayed and that the explanation for the delay was unsatisfactory.
It was noted that the Labour Court had applied its mind to the material placed before it, though at a prima facie level, and had specifically recorded that no show cause notice was issued to the complainant before termination and that no domestic enquiry was conducted, which went to the root of fairness in the employer’s action.
High Court Held
The High Court held that since the petitioners had not acted with due promptness and had failed to show a convincing and reasonable explanation for the delay, there was no good reason for the Court to unsettle the concurrent orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court on a challenge that was grossly delayed. Therefore, petitioners had failed to make out any case for interference, and the writ petition was to be dismissed.
The post HC Dismisses Writ Against Oral Termination Due to Delay appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
