2006 Supreme(Bom) 869

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(V. C. Daga, J.)
VYAPARI SAHAKARI BANK MARYADIT, SOLAPUR - Petitioner.
vs.
P. A. AMBURE and others - Respondents.
Advocates Appeared
For petitioner: P. K. Rele with Piyush Shah
For respondents: Neel Helekar with S. M. Dharap

Headnote:Bombay Industrial Relation Act, 1946 - Preamble MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 Preamble Statutory Schemes under this Act Whether any repugnancy under the Act brought in to supplement and cover field for which concerned industries governed by existing ID Act and BIR Act did not get any coverage Unfair Labour Practice defined with reference to similar statutes. Having considered the statutory schemes of the BIR Act and MRTU and PULP Act, now let Court address to the question whether there is any repugnancy between the BIR Act and MRTU and PULP Act. The answer has to be in negative considering the preamble of the MRTU and PULP Act which clearly indicates that the said Act is brought on the statute book with a view to supplement and cover the field for which the concerned industries governed by the then I.D. Act and the BIR Act did not get any coverage and that field was, obviously, amongst others the field pertaining to the prevention of unfair labour practices as defined by the Act.

       Bombay Industrial Relation Act, 1946 - Sections 42 and 97 MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, Sections 24 and 28, Schedule IV, Item 8 Strike Compliance procedure Whether obligatory Notice given under the Act of 1971 Strike demanded to be declared as illegal Complaint allowed Application dismissed Challenged Employees governed by BIR Act Notice given under MRTU/ PULP Act Both legislation being complementary, compliance both was necessary Both order quashed. The petitioner could not have instituted proceedings, for getting the strike declared as illegal for noncompliance of the provisions of the BIR Act, under the MRTU and PULP Act nor the respondents employees could have made complaint for prevention of unfair labour practices on the part of the employer under the provisions of the BIR Act. Thus, the matter involved in both the proceedings was falling in two different legislations. Hence bar under provisions of Section 59 of the MRTU and PULP Act, sought to be pressed into service by the respondents, is misplaced. In the view of the matter, no hesitation to hold that it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to comply with the provisions of the BIR Act in addition to the compliance of the provisions of MRTU and PULP Act. Both the legislations being complementary to each other, compliance thereof was necessary. Factual matrix reveals no dispute that there was no compliance whatsoever of the provisions of the BIR Act. The employees proceeded on strike without following the provisions of the BIR Act. No submissions were advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents justifying compliance of the provisions of the BIR Act before proceeding on to strike. The strike was, thus, illegal on the touchstone of the provisions of the BIR Act. In the conclusion, the impugned orders are unsustainable for the reasons recorded hereinabove. Both orders impugned in these petitions are, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside.

       Bombay Industrial Relation Act, 1946 - Sections 42 and 97 MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, Sections 28 and 24, Schedule IV, Item 8 Strike Bar to proceedings Ad hoc employees taken Application filed to declare strike as illegal Proceedings under MRTU and PULP Act and BIR Act already initiated Substantive relief claimed quite different Two different legislation involved Bar under Section 59 MRTU/PULP Act wholly misplaced. If one turns to the facts of the instant cases at hand keeping in mind the above statutory provisions, it will be clear that dispute sought to be raised before the Labour Court was with respect to the illegality of the strike resorted by the employees; whereas in the proceedings instituted before the Industrial Court the question was whether the Act of employer leading to ad hoc appointments during the period of strike constituted an unfair labour practice on the part of the employer. The substantive reliefs claimed in both the proceedings were altogether different, though one of the issues involved in both the proceedings was overlapping. Trial of such issue is not prohibited. The petitioner could not have instituted proceedings, for getting the strike declared as illegal for non-compliance of the provisions of the BIR Act, under the MRTU and PULP Act nor the respondents employees could have made complaint for prevention of unfair labour practices on the part of the employer under the provisions of the BIR Act. Thus, the matter involved in both the proceedings was falling in two different legislations. Hence bar under provisions of Section 59 of the MRTU and PULP Act, sought to be pressed into service by the respondents, is misplaced.