Case Note & Summary
The present Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioners, the General Manager of the Greater Mumbai Milk Scheme and another, challenging an order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No.11 of 2024. The Petitioners run and maintain distribution of milk throughout Greater Mumbai and its suburbs. Petitioner No.1 controls activities carried on by the Government of Maharashtra under the Greater Mumbai Milk Scheme, and Petitioner No.2 is responsible for day-to-day activities at the Central Dairy, Goregaon East, Mumbai. The Respondent, Bhakti Gajanan Masurkar, was employed from 1985 in the Central Dairy. The Respondent filed a complaint alleging unfair labour practices under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The Industrial Court passed an interim order granting relief to the Respondent, which the Petitioners challenged in the present writ petition. The Petitioners argued that the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to grant interim relief and that the order was perverse. The Respondent contended that the Industrial Court had the power to grant interim relief under the Act. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to grant interim relief and that the impugned order was not perverse or without jurisdiction. The court noted that the Industrial Court had considered the prima facie case and balance of convenience. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the challenge.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Interim Relief - Jurisdiction of Industrial Court - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) - Sections 28, 30 - The Industrial Court has the power to grant interim relief in a complaint of unfair labour practice even before final adjudication, to prevent the continuance of the alleged unfair practice. The court held that the impugned order granting interim relief was within jurisdiction and not perverse, as the Industrial Court had considered the prima facie case and balance of convenience. (Paras 1-5) B) Industrial Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Interference with Interim Orders - High Court's power under Article 226 - The High Court will not interfere with an interim order passed by the Industrial Court unless it is shown to be without jurisdiction, perverse, or suffers from a patent error of law. In the present case, no such error was found, and the writ petition was dismissed. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to pass an interim order granting relief to the respondent in a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, and whether such order was perverse or without jurisdiction.
Final Decision
Writ Petition dismissed. The impugned order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No.11 of 2024 is upheld.
Law Points
- Industrial Court has jurisdiction to grant interim relief under MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- even if the complaint is pending final adjudication
- interim relief can be granted to prevent unfair labour practices during pendency of complaint
- writ petition against interim order dismissed as no jurisdictional error or perversity shown.
