In a significant ruling reinforcing the rights of trade union members, the Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench has upheld an order reinstating 21 workers of L.G. Balakrishnan & Bros. Ltd., who were dismissed from the company’s Jalna plant in early 2020. Justice Arun R. Pedneker, pronouncing the verdict on October 17, 2025, confirmed that the company’s actions amounted to unfair labour practices under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices (MRTU & PULP) Act, 1971.
“The management,” the bench observed, “used the pretext of forged ITI certificates as a loaded gun against workers for joining the trade union.”
Background
The case arose after 21 permanent employees of the Jalna factory—mostly technicians and machine assistants—were dismissed on January 31 and February 1, 2020. The company claimed the termination was due to loss of confidence, alleging that several workers had submitted fake ITI qualification certificates.
The workers, represented by the Aurangabad Mazdoor Union (CITU), denied the allegations and asserted that their dismissal was retaliation for joining the union. According to the complaint filed before the Industrial Court at Jalna, the management began insisting on “good conduct bonds” and “undertakings” soon after the workers joined the union in mid-2019.
When the employees refused, they were barred from work and later replaced with workers brought in from Tamil Nadu. The Industrial Court in its order dated February 28, 2025, had declared that the company’s actions constituted unfair labour practices and directed reinstatement with 50% back wages.
Court’s Observations
Justice Pedneker began by examining the jurisdictional question — whether the Industrial Court or the Labour Court was competent to hear such a complaint. Referring to the precedent of Prakash Kashiram Sawant vs Motherson Advanced Tooling Ltd., the Court clarified that when termination arises from union-related victimisation, the matter squarely falls within the Industrial Court’s jurisdiction under Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act.
The judge meticulously analyzed the evidence presented by both sides. The company’s senior managers had claimed that the dismissed workers used forged certificates and were unqualified to operate CNC and VMC machinery. But under cross-examination, they admitted that:
- No public recruitment advertisement had prescribed ITI qualification.
- The dismissed workers had received two years of training and two years of probation before being made permanent.
- Other workers without ITI certificates were retained, provided they were not part of the union.
The court noted that the management’s explanation for suddenly demanding original educational certificates “after five years of service” lacked credibility.
“The company,” Justice Pedneker wrote, “has used the ITI qualification as a subterfuge against the complainants for joining the Aurangabad Mazdoor Union.”
He added, “No inquiry was conducted, no charge-sheet was issued, and the entire process of termination violated statutory safeguards under labour law.”
Arguments by Both Sides
Counsel for the petitioner company, Mr. S.V. Dankh, argued that the Industrial Court had denied the company its right to cross-examine all witnesses and that the dismissals were purely disciplinary. He cited the Supreme Court’s decisions on “loss of confidence” cases, including Hindustan Steels Ltd. vs A.K. Roy and Pfizer Ltd. vs Mazdoor Congress.
He further submitted that reinstatement was unworkable since “the trust between the employer and employees has been irreparably broken.”
However, counsel for the union, Mr. T.K. Prabhakaran, countered that the company’s loss of confidence was “manufactured vengeance,” as only those workers affiliated with the Aurangabad Mazdoor Union were terminated. “Other employees, equally or less qualified, were spared because they were not union members,” he stated during the hearing.
After a detailed review of witness statements and documentary evidence, the High Court dismissed the company’s writ petition and affirmed the Industrial Court’s ruling. The Court held that the dismissals were vindictive and unlawful, falling squarely under unfair labour practices specified in Schedule II and IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.
Justice Pedneker upheld the direction to reinstate all 21 complainants within two months and to pay 50% of their back wages from the date of termination till reinstatement.
He reiterated that “employment contracts cannot override statutory labour protections” and cited the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh vs Jet Airways Ltd. to stress that industrial law supersedes private employment agreements.
Before concluding, the bench remarked that the company’s actions “not only targeted union activity but also mocked the interim protection orders passed by the Industrial Court.”
With that, the writ petition of L.G. Balakrishnan & Bros. Ltd. was dismissed.
Case Title: L. G. Balakrishnan & Bros. Ltd. vs Aurangabad Mazdoor Union (CITU) & Ors.
Case Type & Number: Writ Petition No. 9900 of 2025
