JUDGMENT - M.L. PENDSE, J.:---The question which falls for determination in this appeal is whether the Labour Court can entertain complaint of an employee under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the employer had discharged or dismissed the employee. The question requires critical evaluation as the issue arises in large number of complaints pending before the Labour Courts. The facts which gave rise to filing of the appeal are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the circumstances in which the issue.

2. Appellant No. 1 is employed by respondent No. 2 Company and the appellant is a member of the Maharashtra General Kamgar Union. The company served charge-sheet upon appellant No. 1 to show cause why the appellant should not be dismissed from employment for certain misconduct. Appellant No. 1 instituted complaint (UPL) No. 90 of 1989 before the presiding Officer, 1st Labour Court at Bombay alleging that respondent No. 2 is engaged in commission of unfair labour practice under Item No. 1 of Schedule IV of the Act. Appellant No. 1 complained that in pursuance of the show cause notice inquiry is conducted in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice. Appellant No. 1 claimed that the proceedings for dismissal are commenced by the Company not only against appellant No. 1 but against 40 other members of the Union and the action amounts to victimisation. Appellant No. 1 claimed that the company is ought to victimise the employees on account of their loyalty to the Union and for refusal to join another union which is sponsored by the management. Appellant No. 1 apprehended that his service would be terminated and therefore lodged complaint in accordance with section 28(1) of the Act. Appellant No. 1 also sought interim relief in accordance with sub-section (2) of section 30 of the Act restricting the management from continuing with the unfair labour practice complained of. Similar complaints were also filed by appellants Nos. 2 to 9 before the Labour Court.

The Management filed written statement and resisted the complaint, by claiming that the complaint is not maintainable and the jurisdiction of the Labour Court cannot be invoked under Item No. 1 of Schedule IV of the Act as long as the proceedings commenced by the management are not terminated by an order of discharge or dismissal of the employee. The management also resisted the complaint on merits. The Labour Court by order dated August 10, 1989 upheld the preliminary objection about the maintainability of the complaint holding that the complaint under Item No. 1 of Schedule IV of the Act cannot be entertained by the Labour Court until the management has passed order of discharge or dismissal against the employee. The Labour Court proceeded to upheld the preliminary objection in view of the decision of a Single Judge sitting at Nagpur and reported in 1989 Mah.L.J. 798 (Divisional Commissioner, M.S.R.T.C., Wardha v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Court of Maharashtra, Nagpur anr.)1. The complaints filed by the other appellants also met with the same fate. The appellants thereupon preferred Writ Petition No. 2286 of 1989 on the Original Side of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but the petition was summarily dismissed by the learned Single Judge on August 21, 1989 in view of the decision referred hereinabove. The order of summary rejection has given rise to filing of the present appeal.

3. Before adverting to the relevant provisions of the Act and the contentions raised during hearing, it is necessary to refer to the circumstances which led to passing of the Act. The Government of Maharashtra recognised that the development of strong, independent and responsible unions and an orderly, rational environment free from unfair labour practices are the two pre-requisites of effective collective bargaining. There was no e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document