The Industrial Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain a complaint of unfair labour practices under the MRTU and PULP Act based on the allegations in the complaint, the situs of the parties, and the nature of the dispute.

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. Rule. Respondent No.1 waives service. Service on respondent No.2 is not necessary. Even the intervenors waive service and agree that the writ petition be taken up for hearing forthwith. With the consent of the learned advocates, this writ petition is heard finally and disposed off by this judgment and order.

2. The petitioners have challenged, by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 8th August 2011 passed by Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai in complaint (ULP NO.114 of 2011). By this order, the learned Member rejected the application dated 19th July 2011 (Exhibit C-13) raising a preliminary objection to its territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.

3. The 1st respondent-Union is the original complainant.

4. The complaint alleges unfair labour practices under Item 5 of Schedule II and Item 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short MRTU and PULP Act).

5. The 1st respondent-original complainant states that it is a trade union functioning in the establishment of the petitioner No.1, which is the original respondent No.1. It is stated that the unfair labour practices have commenced from 5th April 2011. The thrust of the allegations is that the 1st respondent-Union is a registered trade union functioning in the establishment of the 1st petitioner since 1966. It is a recognised union under the Code of Discipline under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has signed several settlements, concerning wage scale and service conditions of sales promotion employees. The 1st petitioner-company is engaged in manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical products all over India and is a leading company. The Union consists of Sales Promotion Employees employed by the company with different designations such as Medical Representatives, Territory Business Developer, Territory Executive and other such designations. All of them carry out the same functions i.e to promote the products of the company.

6. The definitions of the term "Sales Promotion Employee" under the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions and Services) Act, 1976 and under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, have been referred to and reproduced and it is then alleged that the grievances of the Sales Promotion Employees had been taken up by the Union. There are about 1000 such employees working all over the country. They are members of the 1st respondent-Union. On their behalf, the Union has been signing the settlement laying down wage scales and service conditions from time to time. It is stated that a Charter of Demand was submitted on 4th August 2010, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure A to the complaint and thereupon negotiations commenced with the Union sometime on 21st/22nd January 2011. The last discussion was held sometime in April 2011. They remained inconclusive inasmuch as it is alleged that there is a rigid stand adopted by the 1st petitioner.

7. About 250 Sales Promotion Employees designated as Territory Executives in respect of whom the company has not discussed with the Union although they are carrying out identical functions as Medical Representatives, also had certain grievances and they raised a separate Charter of Demand through 1st respondent-Union and the Union raised its separate Charter in relation thereto on 1st July 2002, a copy of which is at Annexure B. There was no response to the said Charter of Demands and, therefore, intervention of Conciliation Officer was sought and the conciliation proceedings are yet to be initiated.

8. It is alleged that while the office bearers of the Union were busy in preparing for negotiations on the Charter of Demand, the Company suddenly took several steps without the prior knowledge of the Union. The steps that are taken are set out in para 3.8 of the complaint and the same reads thus:

3.8 While the office bearers of the Union were busy in prep