Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rohit Dembiwal, filed a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court challenging the judgment dated 04.09.2021 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Mumbai in Revision Application (ULP) No.10 of 2021. The revision application was filed under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act) against the judgment and order of the learned Judge, Third Labour Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No.28. The Industrial Court dismissed the revision application on the ground that it was not maintainable as no jurisdictional error was made out. The petitioner argued that the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the revision. The respondents, Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. & Ors., supported the Industrial Court's order. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the Industrial Court correctly found that the revision under Section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act lies only on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction, or failure to exercise jurisdiction, and not on merits of factual findings. Since the Labour Court had jurisdiction and the findings were factual, the revision was not maintainable. The High Court found no error in the Industrial Court's order and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Revision under Section 44 of MRTU and PULP Act - Maintainability - The revision application under Section 44 lies only on grounds of lack of jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction or failure to exercise jurisdiction, not on merits of findings of fact. The Industrial Court dismissed the revision as not maintainable because the Labour Court had jurisdiction and the findings were factual. The High Court upheld this view, holding that the Industrial Court correctly found no jurisdictional error. (Paras 2-4) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India - Scope - The High Court in writ jurisdiction does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a perversity or jurisdictional error. The petition challenging the Industrial Court's order was dismissed as no such error was shown. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the revision application under Section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act on the ground that no jurisdictional error was made out.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order dated 04.09.2021.
Law Points
- Maintainability of revision under Section 44 of MRTU and PULP Act
- Scope of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227
- Error of jurisdiction as prerequisite for revision
