SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Bom) 1398

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
Manish Pitale, J.
State Of Maharashtra & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Zilla Krida - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1762, 5617 of 2019
Decided On : 20-04-2022

Advocates appeared:
S. S. Ghate, Advocate, A.J.Salway, Advocate, K.L.Dharmadhikari, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the MRTU & PULP act, the Regulations framed thereunder, and the notification specifying the territorial jurisdiction of various Industrial Courts to determine the maintainability of the complaint based on the location of the alleged unfair labor practices.

Headnote:

Territorial Jurisdiction - Industrial Court - MRTU & PULP act - [Sections 4, 33, Schedules I to IV, Regulations 120 to 125] - The court held that the Industrial Court at Nagpur had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the respondent-Union under the MRTU & PULP act, despite objections raised by the petitioners. The judgment emphasized the provisions of the MRTU & PULP act, the Regulations framed thereunder, and the notification specifying the territorial jurisdiction of various Industrial Courts. It concluded that the complaint was maintainable before the Industrial Court at Nagpur only in respect of employees employed at the District Sports Councils/Committees in the Districts of Nagpur and Wardha.

Fact of the Case:

The District Sports Councils of some Districts in the State of Maharashtra and the State of Maharashtra through the Department of Sports and Youth affairs challenged an order passed by the Industrial Court at Nagpur, rejecting their preliminary objections as regards territorial jurisdiction.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Industrial Court at Nagpur had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the respondent-Union under the MRTU & PULP act, dismissing the objections raised by the petitioners.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Industrial Court at Nagpur had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the respondent-Union regarding alleged unfair labor practices.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of the MRTU & PULP act, the Regulations framed thereunder, and the notification specifying the territorial jurisdiction of various Industrial Courts. It emphasized that the complaint was maintainable before the Industrial Court at Nagpur only in respect of employees employed at the District Sports Councils/Committees in the Districts of Nagpur and Wardha.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned order, and held that the complaint filed by the respondent-Union was maintainable before the Industrial Court at Nagpur only in respect of employees employed at the District Sports Councils/Committees in the Districts of Nagpur and Wardha. The complaint was held to be not maintainable and dismissed as against respondents in the original complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction. All questions on merits were kept open.

JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale, J. - 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 & 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 & 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 20/03/2018, this Co

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top