2014 Supreme(Bom) 758

High Court of Judicature at Bombay
N.M. JAMDAR, J.
Adarsh Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Another
Versus
Anula Rajendra Nile & Others
Writ Petition No. 5917 of 1998
Decided on: 26-03-2014

Headnote:Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Sections 28, 44 and 50 - Application under Section 50 of Act. - Where Industrial Court passed an order under Section 44 of Act in revision for payment of dues to employee therefore application under Section 50 of Act is maintainable. - Section 50 states that where any money is due to employee from employer under an order passed by Court under Chapter VI, application under Section 50 is maintainable. Chapter VI of Act deals with unfair labour practices. This chapter has three Sections 26, 27 and 28.

       The Industrial Court can itself pass order under Section 28. Section 44 of Act confers revisional powers upon Industrial Court to call for records and have power of superintendence over Labour Courts. For purpose of Section 50, when Industrial Court either approves, sets aside or modifies order passed by Labour Court under Section 28 of Act effect will be to remedy unfair labour practice. Thus order passed in revision under Section 44, dealing with order of Labour Court under Section 28 in respect of unfair labour practice would fall in ambit of Section 50, being under Chapter VI. Power to correct and remedy unfair labour practice is under Section 28 of Act.

       Further if argument is accepted it would lead to anomalous position. It would mean recourse to Section 50 will be permissible only if complaint is rejected and order is reversed favour of an employee by Industrial Court then employee will have no recourse to Section 50. This will produce highly inequitable results and it will be completely contrary to intention of legislature in enacting Section 50, beneficial piece of legislation.

       Perusal of consent order passed by Industrial Court will show that what was agreed by petitioner was that respondent No. I will be paid amounts as directed by Labour Court, exercising powers under Section 28. Certain other modalities were worked out and the complaints filed by respondent No. 1 alleging Unfair Labour practices were disposed of. Thus Industrial Court in revisional proceedings only consolidated all complaints filed under Act and disposed them by way of consent terms. Parties acknowledged rights of respondent No. 1 to receive amounts under order passed by Labour Court under Section 28 of Act. Therefore, it was clear that Industrial Court had passed order under Chapter VI. Application therefore was maintainable.

       Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Section 50 - Application for issuance of recovery certificate. - An application for issuance of recovery certificate filed by employee not automatically falls outside scope of Section 50 just because Commissioner said that claims were disputed. - Once rights of parties are determined by adjudication then it is open to Industrial Court to grant relief under Section 50 of Act by carrying out arithmetical calculations. Division bench emphasized that since Section 50 provided expeditious remedy and interpretation which advances object of Act rather than defeats same, needs to be adopted.

       In this case parties entered into consent terms and agreed to certain rights and liabilities. Industrial Court appointed Commissioner. Before Commissioner, petitioner participated and produced certain material. Commissioner gave its report on some of the issues and for some of issues, Commissioner left it to Court to decide.

       Commissioner was not exercising powers of Industrial Court, but was merely assisting it. Ultimate decision as to whether claims were in fact disputed or not was with Industrial Court. Therefore, contention of counsel for petitioner that because Commissioner stated that some claims were disputed, application automatically fell outside scope of Section 50, not liable to be accepted.

       Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Section 50 - Claim for recovery of dues. - Once rights of parties are determined by consent terms then Industrial Court can grant relief under Section 50 of Act by carrying out calculations as per consent terms. - When application under Section 50 is made and different calculations are asserted from both the sides there is bound to be some area of adjudication as regards the calculations to be made, but that does not mean that moment there is an element of slightest adjudication, the order of the Industrial Court needs to be set aside on the ground that the Court stepped aside outside its jurisdiction. It will depend on facts of each case to ascertain the extent of adjudication. In the present case I do not find that the Industrial Court has stepped outside the jurisdiction under Section 50 of the Act. The Industrial Court has only given effect to the understanding between the parties, and proceeded to calculate the amounts.