PFIZER LTD. versus MAZDOOR CONGRESS AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 716 · Decided: 16-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA, B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PFIZER LTD. 
v. 
MAZDOOR CONGRESS AND ORS. 
AUGUST 16, 1996 
B 
[J.S. VERMA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
Labour Law: 
Maharashtra Recogllitioll of Trade Ullio11s and Preventio11 of Ullfair 
C Labour Practices Act, 1971 : Sections 26 a11d 28 a11d Items !(a) to (j) of 
Schedule Iv. 
Ullfair labour practice-Termi11atio11 of service-Al/egatio11 that 
employer acted with u11due haste while dischargi11g or dismissing all 
employee-Detenninatio11of-Held:110 ge11eral principles could be laid dow11 
D ill this regard-Being a questio11 of fact, it had to be detennined on basis of 
evidence on record-In the circumstances of the case, there was no undue 
haste 011 the part of the employer. 
E 
F 
Constitution of l11dia, 1950 : Article 227. 
New plea-Pennissibility of in writ proceedings-Te1mination of ser-
vice-Complaint against--Filed in Labour Court under S.28 of MRTU & 
PULP Act-However, 110 specific colltention that employer acted with undue 
haste and thereby committed u11fair labour practice specified in Item I (f) Sch 
W of Act was raised either before Labour Court or in revisio11 before 
Industrial Court 11or any evidellce led to that effect-Both Labour and I11-
dustrial Courts found employer had committed no unfair labour prac-
tice-Evell in writ petition no such co11te11tion was raised-Held : High Court 
was not justified i11 allowing the employees to raise such a colltention while 
hearing the petition and setting aside concurrent findings of Courts below by 
G making out new case-ln the circumstances of the case, there was no undue 
haste on part of employer. 
The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical 
products. The respondents 2 and 3 were engaged as security staff at the 
factory of the appellant (watchman and havaldar respectively). On 7.8.1975 
H one temporary workman named P employed by the appellant at its factory 
716 
PFIZER LTD. v. MAZDOOR CONGRESS 
717 
was caught by respondents 2 and 3 while he was trying to take away certain A 
products or the appellant. The said workman was handed over to the police 
authorities to whom he had disclosed that besides himseU respondents 2 
and 3 were also involved in a conspiracy to commit theft of the products 
of the appellant. 
Subsequently on 9.8.1975 respondents 2 and 3 were arrested by the 
police. On 10.8.1975 the statements of the said respondents were recorded 
pursuant to which recovery was made of the stolen property. After the 
arrest, the said respondents were absent from duty Without leave. On 
14.8.1975 the appellant had before it information regarding the involve-
ment or the said respondents in the theft or its property. Thereafter, the 
appellant terminated the services or the said respondents on the ground 
that it had lost confidence in their suitability as members or its watch and 
ward staff in accordance With its certified standing order No. 25(4). In the 
meanwhile, the police tiled chargesheets against the said respondents 
under Section 381 read With Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
Respondents 2 and 3 tiled identical complaints before the Labour 
Court under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union 
and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 challenging their 
termination of services on the ground that the appellant had committed 
unfair labour practice under Item l(a) to (I) or Schedule IV of the Act. The 
Labour Court dismissed the complaints. The Industrial Court allowed the 
revision petition tiled by the said respondents and remanded the matter 
to the Labour Court With certain directions. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Before the Labour Court only the contention of unfair labour prac-
F 
lice falling under Item l(a) or (c) or Schedule IV of the Act was raised. 
The Labour Court dismissed the complaints. In the revision petition tiled 
before the Industrial Court the same contention was raised. The Industrial 
Court also dismissed the revision petition. Respondents 2 and 3 tiled writ 
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court 
challenging the aforesaid order of the Industrial Court. Before the High G 
Court the said respondents raised a new contention that the appellant had 
committed unfair labour practice as contemplated by Item I (I) of Schedule 
IV of the Act. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition r,n the ground that 
the appellants had indulged in unfair labour practice covered by Item 1(1) 
of Schedule IV of the Act. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred the H 
718 
SUP

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.