The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Industrial Court cannot adjudicate on issues that are not part of the reference and have been previously rejected in a complaint, and that the Court can set aside directions that exceed its jurisdiction while upholding valid directions.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the Petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. This petition is filed by the Employer-Ganesh Industries challenging the Award dated 11 June 2019 as corrected by further Order dated 12 November 2020 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai. By the impugned Award, the Industrial Court has partly allowed the Reference and has decided various demand (total 21 in number) raised by the Respondent-Union relating to rise in basic Wages, Dearness Allowance, Categorization of various Allowance (House Rent, Leave Travel, Education, City Conveyance, Washing, Medical and Lunch), Attendance bonus and Bonus, Festival Advance, Leave Facility, Uniform Facility and Shift Arrangement. It must be observed at the very outset that though total 15 demands of the Respondent-Union have been adjudicated by the Industrial Court, the Petitioner has restricted the challenge in this petition to the adjudication of demands pertaining to Ad-hoc rise in basic Wages and Education Allowance. A statement made on behalf of the Petitioner in this regard has been recorded by this Court during the course of hearing on 10 October 2023. Thus what needs to be decided in the present petition is the correctness of the decision of the Industrial Court with regard to the adjudication of demands relating to Ad-Hoc rise in basic Wages and Education Allowance only.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Petitioner is engaged in the business of trading of Papad from the year 2015, prior to which it was also involved in manufacturing of Papad. Petitioner has engaged several workers, majority of them being women in its establishment, for packing of Papad for its trading business. Respondent Sarva Mazdoor Sangh is the Union of employees working for the Petitioner-establishment.

4. The Respondent-Union filed Complaint (ULP) No. 593 of 2008 in the Industrial Court under the provisions of Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) together with Items No.5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule-IV thereof. In addition to various other grievances, relating to non-conferment of permanency status, one of the grievances raised in the said complaint was about non-payment of minimum wages under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. The Industrial Court adjudicated the said complaint and by its Judgment and Order dated 20 September 2013 has dismissed the same.

5. Simultaneously, during pendency of Complaint (ULP) No. 593 of 2008, the Respondent-Union submitted Charter of Demands on 4 May 2009 raising total 23 demands. Demand No.1 was for ad-Hoc rise in basic wages w.e.f. 1 April 2009 at the rate of Rs.800/- in the first year, Rs.600/- in the second year and Rs.500/- in the third year. Respondent-Union also raised a demand for Education Allowance at the rate of Rs.1200/- per month. In support of the Charter of Demands, Respondent-Union filed Statement of Justification dated 6 November 2009 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Conciliation) and justified their demand for ad-hoc wage rise sought in the Charter citing the reasons of steep rise in the prices of essential commodities and profits earned by the Petitioner. Upon failure of conciliation proceedings, their demands were referred for adjudication before the Industrial Court, Mumbai by the Additional Labour Commissioner, Mumbai vide Order dated 10 October 2011.

6. The Respondent-Union filed Statement of Claim in support of the Charter of Demands before the Industrial Court, in which again it reiterated the demand for rise in wages at the rate of Rs.800/- per month from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010, at the rate of Rs.600/- per month from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 and at the rate of Rs.500/- per month from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012. They justified demands for Education Allowance at the rate of Rs.1200/- per month. The Petitioner opposed the Ch