Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.
Prakash Kashiram Sawant – Appellant
Versus
Motherson Advanced Tooling Solutions Limited – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 12119 of 2016
Decided On : 03-07-2019
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 – Section 30(2),53,27,28,5 and 30 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 11A - Seeking interim relief - Removed from service - Termination of service - Petitioners, original complainants in Complaint are aggrieved by impugned interlocutory orders passed by the Industrial Court - Petitioners submit that exhibit U/2 was an application seeking interim relief under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 and the application exhibit U/8 was filed on behalf of petitioners, who have been stigmatically removed from service by respondent employer by order when their ULP complaint was already registered - It is further contended that petitioner had submitted their resignation letter under duress - They withdrew resignation letter - They were granted increments - As they had intimated management that they were filing a ULP complaint, they were relieved and they filed their complaint - Whether original reliefs sought by complainants could be granted or would survive, even after subsequent events – Held, however, in present case, although there may have been a breach of standing orders applicable to establishment, result is that there has been a termination of service of the employee - Consequently, reliefs which can be claimed is of reinstatement with continuity of service with full back-wages - This is a relief which can be granted by the Labour Court under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act - In fact, under Section 7 of Act, all complaints relating to unfair labour practices described in Item 1 of Schedule IV of Act are to be tried exclusively by the Labour Court - In the instant case, action of petitioner in terminating services of respondent has resulted in petitioners claim for reinstatement which is the final relief that can be granted to respondent - This relief is within the scope and the ambit of jurisdiction of Labour Court and it was necessary for the respondent to file a complaint under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act - This is the view taken by this Court in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. (supra) after considering judgment in the cases of Supertext (India) Corporation (supra) and A-Z (INDL) Premises Co-op. Society Ltd. (supra) - In the present case, initial jurisdiction in the substantive complaint filed by respondent can be entertained by the Labour Court only - Industrial Court has no jurisdiction to try a complaint in which only grievance is wrongful termination - Substantive complaint can be entertained only by Labour Court as it relates to a matter provided in Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act and complaint filed under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act is not maintainable - Petition is disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. The petitioners, original complainants in Complaint (ULP) No. 338/2015, are aggrieved by the impugned interlocutory orders, both dated 23.08.2016 below exhibit U/2 and below exhibit U/8, passed by the Industrial Court, Aurangabad.
3. The petitioners submit that exhibit U/2 was an application seeking interim relief under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the said Act, 1971") and the application exhibit U/8 was filed on behalf of petitioners nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 7, who have been stigmatically removed from service by the respondent employer by order dated 06.10.2015 when their ULP complaint was already registered on 05.09.2015.
4. It is further contended that petitioner nos. 9 and 10 had submitted their resignation letter under duress on 29.06.2015. They withdrew the resignation letter on 01.08.2015. They were granted increments on 01.09.2015. As they had intimated the management that they were filing a ULP complaint, they were relieved on 03.09.2015 and they filed their common complaint on 05.09.2015.
5. These petitioners have preferred Complaint (ULP) No. 338/2015 before the Industrial Court, Aurangabad on 05.09.2015. The prayers put forth in the complaint below paragraph 17 are as under:-
"(a) Declare that the Respondent has engaged in and engaging in unfair labour practices within the meaning of item 1(a)(c), 4(a)(b) of Schedule II and item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
(b) Direct the Respondent to cease and desist from such unfair labour practices.
(c) Direct the Respondent not to impose exploitative terms and conditions upon the complainant no. 1 to 3, 5 to 7 and 9 and 10 and further be directed to strictly follow the service conditions and terms of contract having statutory force.
(d) Direct the Respondent not to act against the Complainants No. 1 to 3, 5 to 7 and 9 and 10 with malafide intention and not to deliberately change the service conditions.
(e) Direct the Respondent not to coerce the Complainants No. 1 to 3, 5 to 7 and 9 and 10 and not to interfere in any manner in their decision of forming a trade union.
(f) Direct the Respondent not to terminate, discharge, dismiss, transfer or not to act in prejudicial manner against the Complainant No. 1 to 3, 5 to 7 and 9 and 10 and not to discontinue them in any manner.
(g) Direct the Respondent to pay arrears of incentives till date to the Complainant No. 1 to 3, 5 to 7 in terms of letter and spirit of the agreement entered by the Respondent with Bhartiya Kamgar Karmchari Mahasang.
(h) Direct the Respondent to continue to pay the incentive amount to the Complainant No. 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 in terms of letter and spirit of the settlement entered with Bhartiya Kamgar Karmchari Mahasang so long the settlement exist.
(i) Direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant No. 4 arrears of incentive unpaid amount of Rs. 700/- per month from 1st April, 2011 till date and further be directed to pay him regularly the incentive amount.
(j) Direct the Respondent to pay to each of the Complainant No. 1 to 3, 4 to 7 compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for deliberately causing loss to their earning of incentives.
(k) Any other relief or reliefs to which the complainants found entitled on the ground of they being prevented for exercising their right of forming trade union, and oblige."
6. In the application for interim relief, the prayers below paragraph 5 are as under:-
"(a) Declare that the Respondent has prima facie engaged in and engaging in unfair labour practices as complained.
(b) Direct the Respondent to temporarily cease and desist from such unfair labour practices.
(c) Direct the Respondent not to impose upon the Complainants No. 1 to 3, 5 to 7 and 9 and 10 exploitative terms of employment and strictly adhere to the terms of service and contract which has
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
