Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Madura Coats Employees Union, challenged an order of the Industrial Court, Mumbai, which dismissed their complaint regarding deduction of salary of union representatives for 17th November 2000. The respondent company had given a notice on 16th November 2000 that an appeal would be mentioned on 17th November 2000 at 2:45 p.m. However, on 17th November 2000 at 2:02 p.m., the company's advocate sent a fax cancelling the notice due to office objections. The union representatives had already left for the High Court and attended, but the company deducted their salary for that day. The union contended that this violated Section 23 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, and a long standing practice between the parties. The Industrial Court held that the requirements of Section 23 were not fulfilled as no certificate from the court was produced. The High Court, while admitting the petition, noted that the Industrial Court had glossed over the argument regarding the long standing practice. The High Court observed that a fax sent at 2:02 p.m. on the same day could not be considered adequate notice of cancellation, as representatives would have had to start early to attend the 2:45 p.m. hearing. The Court set aside the Industrial Court's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the Industrial Court to consider the long standing practice and the adequacy of the cancellation notice.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Section 23 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Deduction of Salary - The issue pertained to deduction of salary of union representatives who attended High Court proceedings pursuant to a notice, despite a last-minute cancellation fax sent at 2:02 p.m. on the same day. The Court held that such a late cancellation notice was not adequate, and the Industrial Court had overlooked the long standing practice between the parties permitting office bearers to attend court proceedings and produce proof of attendance, failing which it was treated as casual leave (Paras 6-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the deduction of salary of union representatives for attending court proceedings on 17th November 2000 was justified when the cancellation notice was sent at 2:02 p.m. on the same day, and whether the Industrial Court erred in not considering the long standing practice between the parties.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the order dated 6th August 2008 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No.1415 of 2000, and remanded the matter back to the Industrial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law, directing the Industrial Court to consider the long standing practice between the parties and the adequacy of the cancellation notice.
Law Points
- Section 23 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act
- 1971
- long standing practice
- adequate notice
- cancellation of notice
- duty of employer
Case Details
Writ Petition No.2118 of 2008
Ms. Suvarna Joshi for Petitioner, Ms. Shraddha Naik for Respondent
Madura Coats Employees Union
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Industrial Court dismissing a complaint regarding deduction of salary of union representatives.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 6th August 2008 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No.1415 of 2000 and to direct the respondent to pay the deducted salary.
Filing Reason
The respondent company deducted the salary of union representatives for 17th November 2000 despite the representatives attending the High Court pursuant to a notice, which was cancelled only at 2:02 p.m. on the same day.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint holding that the requirements of Section 23 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 were not fulfilled.
Issues
Whether the deduction of salary of union representatives for attending court proceedings on 17th November 2000 was justified when the cancellation notice was sent at 2:02 p.m. on the same day.
Whether the Industrial Court erred in not considering the long standing practice between the parties permitting office bearers to attend court proceedings and produce proof of attendance.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the respondent company had a long standing practice of permitting office bearers to attend court proceedings and produce proof of attendance, failing which it was treated as casual leave. The cancellation notice sent at 2:02 p.m. on the same day was not adequate notice.
The respondent argued that the requirements of Section 23 of the Act were not fulfilled as no certificate from the court was produced.
Ratio Decidendi
A cancellation notice sent at 2:02 p.m. on the same day of a scheduled hearing at 2:45 p.m. is not adequate notice, and the Industrial Court must consider the long standing practice between the parties regarding attendance of union representatives in court proceedings when determining entitlement to salary under Section 23 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
Judgment Excerpts
by no stretch of imagination, a fax notice sent at about 02:02 p.m. on the very day i.e. on 17th November 2000 can be said to be an adequate notice of cancellation of notice dated 16th November 2000 so that the representatives of the Union need not attend the High Court.
the learned Member, Industrial Court has completely overlooked the long standing practice followed by the parties permitting the office bearers of the Union to attend the proceedings before the High Court and produce proof of attendance, failing which it was to be treated as casual leave.
Procedural History
The respondent company filed Appeal No.604 of 2000 in the High Court. On 16th November 2000, a notice was given to the union that the appeal would be mentioned on 17th November 2000 at 2:45 p.m. On 17th November 2000 at 2:02 p.m., a fax was sent cancelling the notice. The union representatives attended the High Court nonetheless. The company deducted their salary. The union filed Complaint (ULP) No.1415 of 2000 before the Industrial Court, Mumbai, which was dismissed on 6th August 2008. The union then filed the present Writ Petition No.2118 of 2008, which was admitted on 15th October 2008. The High Court heard the petition and delivered judgment on 1st August 2024.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: 23
- Constitution of India: 226
