‘Dongre and Dongre falls under industry category’

He filed a labour suit on June 6,under the MRTU and PULP Act,alleging that his termination was an act of unfair labour practice.

Even as Prabhune said he was being victimised,the firm refuted all the allegations saying it was his ‘misconduct’ that led to his removal. The firm representatives stated that Prabhune was an irresponsible employee and was caught downloading certain programmes for his personal use through the office Internet connection without permission. The firm’s lawyer argued that Prabhune was given a one-month notice and was paid Rs 29,600 in lieu of his dues.

On July 25,judge N B Yenurkar of the Pune Labour Court passed an order directing the firm to reinstate Prabhune to his original post within 30 days and allow him to work till a decision was taken on the complaint. As an alternative to reinstatement,the firm was also given an option to pay 70 per cent of the wages to Prabhune.

However,the firm filed a revision application in the Pune Industrial Court based on which the court modified the earlier order.

Prabhune’s counsel Abhay Pradhan said that the revised order that came on January 13 stated that instead of direction to reinstate the complainant on his original post or to pay 70 percent wages,the firm was asked to pay 50 per cent wages to the complainant from the date of order till a decision was taken on the complaint.

The firm had also argued that it was a ‘small establishment registered under the Shops and Establishment’s Act and not an industry. It also alleged that Prabhune is not a workman as defined by the Industrial Disputes Act and hence his complaint is not maintainable. The revised order had directed the Labour Court to decide on these two aspects within six months.

Accordingly,the labour court passed an order last week that the firm is an ‘industry’ and Prabhune is a workman as per the Industrial Disputes Act.

‘It is crystal clear that the respondent (firm) is engaged in the systematic activity organised by cooperation between employer and the employee with commercial element,’ the order stated. It also went on to say that Prabhune was a workman as the nature of his duties were neither of supervisory nor administrative in nature.

The firm was asked to deposit an amount of Rs 1,12,500 within four weeks from January 13. “The firm has deposited the amount in Labour Court as directed. However,it is yet to be disbursed,” said Prabhune.

Rajeev Dongre,one of the partners of Dongre and Dongre Associates said that they have decided to further appeal in the Labour Court.