Back
1991 Supreme(Bom) 461
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
B.N. Srikrishna, J.
Dalal Engineering Pvt. Ltd..... Petitioner.
Versus
Ramrao Bhaurao Sawant others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 2783 of 1989, decided on 20-9-1991.
Advocates appeared :
C.U. Singh with Shobha Gopal, for petitioner.
N.M. Ganguli, for Leela Mehta for, respondent No. 1.
The jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under Item 1 of Scheduled IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 could arise only if the order of discharge or dismissal was complete.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL LAW - UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES - JURISDICTION - MAHARASHTRA RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNIONS AND PREVENTION OF UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES ACT, 1971 - SECTION 30 - COMPLAINT UNDER ITEM 1 OF SCHEDULE IV - MAINTAINABILITY - INTERIM RELIEF - JURISDICTION OF LABOUR COURT - SCOPE - LIMITS - PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a private limited company, faced a stay-in strike by its employees led by the first respondent, a workman, over the dismissal of another employee. The petitioner obtained an ad interim injunction restraining the union from obstructing the movement of men and material. The union also filed a complaint alleging that the injunction violated their rights. The Labour Court granted an ex parte injunction restraining the petitioner from terminating the first respondent's employment without permission. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that the complaint was not maintainable as no action of discharge or dismissal had yet been taken against the first respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the complaint was not maintainable as the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under Item 1 of Scheduled IV of the Act could arise only if the order of discharge or dismissal was complete. The Court further held that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and grant interim relief as there was no finding of unfair labour practice.
Issues: 1. Whether the complaint filed by the first respondent was maintainable under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act? 2. Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and grant interim relief?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the complaint was not maintainable as the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under Item 1 of Scheduled IV of the Act could arise only if the order of discharge or dismissal was complete. The Court relied on its earlier judgments in Divisional Commissioner, M.S.R.T.C. Wardha v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Nagpur and Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. v. D.T. Pandey, which held that the jurisdiction to prevent unfair labour practices under the Act could arise only if the order of discharge or dismissal was complete. 2. The Court held that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and grant interim relief as there was no finding of unfair labour practice. The Court held that the jurisdiction to issue an interim order under section 30(2) of the Act comes into existence only upon a finding that there is a unfair labour practice. If it is a final order, there must be a final finding, and, if it is an interim order, there must at least be a prima facie finding of unfair labour practice.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned orders of the Labour Court were quashed and set aside. The Complaint (ULP) No. 364 of 1987 was dismissed as untenable.
2. The petitioner is a private limited company, which carries on business as structural engineers and fabricators of industrial engineering equipment. For this purpose, they are required to get steel and other raw-material from their customers and carry out fabrication thereof within their factory. The first respondent is an employee of the petitioner working as a Fitter. One workman, by name T.B. Patel, was dismissed by the petitioner on 25th September, 1986, after he was found guilty of certain misconduct proved against him at a duly held domestic enquiry. It appears that the dismissal of this workman, Patel become a prestige issue with the first respondent and certain other workmen who instigated a stay in strike for reinstatement of the said Patel. After carrying on the stay-in strike till about 1986, respondent No. 1 and other workmen resorted to picketing and obstruction of movement of men and material. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Industrial Court, Thane and obtained an ad interim order of injunction on 26th November, 1986, restraining the Association of Engineering Workers, the trade union representing the workmen and several other workmen, from, inter alia, obstructing deliver of goods or movement of material and receipt of material. It appears that, at about the same time, without the petitioner being aware of it, the union had also filed a Complaint (ULP) No. 462 of 1986, and obtained an ex parte order of injunction therein. The workmen took up the stand that the order of injunction restrained the petitioner employer from moving men and material in and out of its factory and it had virtually the effect of annulling the earlier order of injunction granted on 26th November, 1986 in the petitioner's complaint. The Industrial Court was moved by an application by the petitioner and the Industrial Court, by an order dated 27th November, 1986, clarified that its earlier order made in Complaint (ULP) No. 460 of 1986 was not nullified by the order made in the union's Complaint (ULP) No. 364 of 1986. The Industrial Court also explained therein that the cumulative effect of the two orders was that the petitioner could remove finished and also semi-finished goods and raw material for job work as per existing practice and the workers should not obstruct the same until further orders. Despite this clarification given by the Industrial Court, the workmen, led by respondent No. 1 and others, continued to obstruct the movement of men and material to and from the factory. A charge-sheet dated 1st December, 1986, was served on the first respondent alleging specific charges in connection with such obstruction and other misconduct which took place on 29th November, 1986. Surprisingly, the first respondent in his explanation dated 5th December, 1986, took up the stand that the petitioner's taking away of material, machinery parts, raw-material etc. from the factory premises, was a violation of the order of injunction granted by the Industrial Court and that the interpretation thereof, as clarified by the Court, was not acceptable to the workmen. In the circumstances, the first respondent justified the Act alleged against him and denied that he was guilty of any misconduct.
3. During the period January to April, 1987, an enquiry was held into the charge-sheet given to the first respondent. The first respondent attended the enquiry. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that, apart from the first respondent, certain other workmen were also charge-sheeted, and the enquiry wa
