The Industrial Court's territorial jurisdiction to entertain complaints alleging unfair labour practices is determined by the specific places and Districts where the alleged unfair labour practices occurred, as per the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Pitale, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard these writ petitions finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties. Though respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and 9 to 34 are served in Writ Petition No. 5617 of 2019, none appears for them.

3. By these two writ petitions, District Sports Councils of some Districts in the State of Maharashtra, as also the State of Maharashtra through the Department of Sports and Youth Affairs, have challenged an order passed by the Industrial Court at Nagpur, whereby their preliminary objections as regards territorial jurisdiction of the Industrial Court, have been rejected.

4. Applications were filed before the Industrial Court at Nagpur raising the preliminary objection of territorial jurisdiction on the ground that the complaint would be maintainable before the Industrial Court at Nagpur only as regards employees and the grievance of unfair labour practice in the Districts of Nagpur and Wardha to which the territorial jurisdiction of the Industrial Court at Nagpur extends. According to the petitioners, the complaint filed by the respondent-Zilla Krida Sankul Karmachari Sanghatana (hereinafter referred to as the “respondent-Union”) raising the grievance of alleged unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “MRTU and PULP Act”) is not maintainable in respect of District Sports Councils/Committees other than the District Sports Councils/Committees pertaining to the Districts of Nagpur and Wardha.

5. The respondent-Union filed Complaint (ULP) No. 72 of 2014, before the Industrial Court at Nagpur, wherein the State of Maharashtra through the Department of Sports and Youth Affairs as also the Commissioner of the Department of Sports and Youth Affairs along with Chairmen/Secretaries of District Sports Councils/Committees of various Districts of State of Maharashtra have been arrayed as respondents. It is alleged by the respondent-Union that under a scheme of the State of Maharashtra such District Sports Councils/Committees have been registered as societies in the said districts, wherein the Collector is the Ex-Officio Chairman and the District Sports Officer is the Ex-Officio Secretary. It is alleged that employees in these respective District Sports Councils/Committees are members of the respondent-Union and hence, the Union is espousing their cause. It is alleged that by not granting benefits of permanency to the members of the respondent-Union, who are employees of these District Sports Councils/Committees, the respondents have indulged in unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act. It is claimed that the employees have completed more than 240 days of service in a year, in pursuance of which they are entitled to the benefits of permanency, but they have been wrongly deprived of the same. On the basis of such pleadings, the respondent-Union has further claimed that since it has its registered office at Wardha, the complaint filed before the Industrial Court at Nagpur, which has territorial jurisdiction over the Districts of Nagpur and Wardha, is maintainable and that the complaint needs to be considered and decided on merits.

6. In the said complaint, on 15-12-2016, the Industrial Court at Nagpur passed an order directing the respondents before the Industrial Court to maintain status quo in respect of service conditions of the members of the said Union. At that stage also, the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the complaint was pending adjudication before the Industrial Court at Nagpur. Aggrieved by the said order dated 15-12-2016, directing the respondents in the complaint to maintain status quo, the Chairman of the District Sports Council for the Nagpur District filed Writ Petition No. 4156 of 2017, before this Court. By judgment and order dated 20-3