PFIZER LTD. versus MAZDOOR CONGRESS AND ORS.

PFIZER LTD. versus MAZDOOR CONGRESS AND ORS.

The High Court erred in allowing a new plea of 'undue haste' under Item 1(l) of Schedule IV to be raised for the first time in writ proceedings under Article 227, which was neither pleaded nor supported by evidence before the Labour or Industrial Court. Whether there is undue haste in termination is a factual question to be judged on record, and no such case was made out by the respondents. Therefore, the judgments/orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court, which found no unfair labour practice, are restored.

Parties
Appellant: Pfizer Ltd.; Respondents: Mazdoor Congress and Ors. (including Waman S. Surve and R.B. Sail)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 August 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Bombay High Court's Order Under Article 227 to the Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of the High Court set aside; judgments and orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court restored.
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Termination of Service, Loss of Confidence, Jurisdiction Under Article 227
Labour Law Constitutional Law Unfair Labour Practice Termination of Service Loss of Confidence Jurisdiction Under Article 227

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pfizer Ltd.

Appellant

Mazdoor Congress and Ors. (including Waman S. Surve and R.B. Sail)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Bombay High Court's Order Under Article 227 to the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer (Pfizer Ltd.) committed unfair labour practice under Section 26, Section 28 and Schedule IV, Item 1(a)-(l), particularly undue haste under Item 1(f)/(l), of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, in terminating services of respondents 2 and 3.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was justified in allowing respondents 2 and 3 to raise a new plea (undue haste) not urged before lower courts, in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in allowing a new plea of 'undue haste' under Item 1(l) of Schedule IV to be raised for the first time in writ proceedings under Article 227, which was neither pleaded nor supported by evidence before the Labour or Industrial Court. Whether there is undue haste in termination is a factual question to be judged on record, and no such case was made out by the respondents. Therefore, the judgments/orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court, which found no unfair labour practice, are restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of the High Court set aside; judgments and orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court restored.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment of the High Court dated 22/26.2.90 set aside.
  • Judgments/orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court are restored.