VENCO RESEARCH AND BREEDING FARM PRIVATE LIMITED v. RASHTRIYA SHRAMIK AGHADI AND ORS
High Court Partially Allows Writ Petition: Reinstatement Order Quashed, Monetary Compensation Awarded Due to Lack of Due Process in Termination after Strike.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:52181-DB
Decision Date: 01-12-2025
List of Laws
The Companies Act, 1956; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957
Case Brief
- Facts: Venco Research and Breeding Farm Private Limited (the Petitioner) challenged an award passed by the Labour Court, Satara, which directed the company to reinstate 12 workmen with continuity of service and one workman with continuity of service and back wages. The dispute arose after 91 workmen engaged in a hunger strike, and the Union alleged that the workmen were orally terminated and denied re-entry. The company claimed the workmen abandoned their duties. A key point of contention was a prior firing incident, which the Union falsely presented as the cause of the strike to gain sympathy.
- Procedural Posture: The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging the Labour Court's award. The High Court was directed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice to hear and decide the petition.
- Issue: Whether the Labour Court's award directing reinstatement of the workmen was justified, considering the circumstances of the strike, the alleged oral termination, and the evidence presented by both parties; and whether the workmen were terminated in violation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
- Holding: The High Court partly allowed the Writ Petition, quashing the Labour Court's order for reinstatement and back wages. Instead, the High Court directed the company to pay monetary compensation of Rs. 7,50,000 to each of the 13 workmen, including those who had expired or superannuated.
- Reasoning: The High Court found that the Union had presented a false case regarding the firing incident to gain sympathy. While the company did not conduct an inquiry or formally terminate the workmen after issuing show-cause notices, the Labour Court failed to properly analyze the cause of the strike and the subsequent events. The court reasoned that the Labour Court's direction for reinstatement was unsustainable. However, because the company did not follow due process for termination, the court directed monetary compensation as a fair resolution. The court also found that singling out one workman, Mr. Santosh Bhargude, for preferential treatment with full backwages was not justified.