Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, The Indian Express (P) Ltd. and others, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 19 September 2022 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane, on an application at Exhibit U-2 in Complaint (ULP) No.160 of 2022 filed by the respondents, Dinesh Rane and others. The respondents, who are employees, had filed the 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 granted interim relief restraining the petitioners from terminating the services of the respondents without following due process of law and further directed that in the event of transfer, seven days' time be granted before giving effect to the transfer order to enable them to challenge it. The petitioners challenged this order before the High Court. The High Court, after hearing senior advocates for both sides, examined the impugned order and found that the Industrial Court had granted interim relief in the form of restraining the employer from terminating services without due process and from operating the transfer order for seven days. The High Court noted that the Industrial Court had considered the submissions and passed a reasoned order. The High Court held that the impugned order did not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the interim relief granted by the Industrial Court.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Interim Relief - MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, Schedule II Items 1(a), 2(a), 3, 4(f), Schedule IV Items 3, 5, 9, 10 - The Industrial Court granted interim relief restraining the employer from terminating services without due process and directing seven days' notice before transfer. The High Court upheld the order, finding no perversity or jurisdictional error. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in granting interim relief restraining the employer from terminating the services of the employees without following due process of law and directing that in the event of transfer, seven days' time be granted before giving effect to the transfer order.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order dated 19 September 2022.
Law Points
- Interim relief
- Unfair labour practice
- Termination without due process
- Transfer order
- Seven days' notice
- MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Schedule II Items 1(a)
- 2(a)
- 3
- 4(f)
- Schedule IV Items 3
- 5
- 9
- 10
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (01) 124
Writ Petition No.10814 of 2023
Mr. Darius Khambata, Senior Advocate a/w Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, Mr. Amol Joshi, Mr. Pranit Kulkarni, Ms. Tejasvi Ghag and Mr. Shivam Singh i/b Mr. Poorvi Kamani for the Petitioners; Ms. Gayatri Singh with Ms. Madhvi Gomathieshwaran for Respondent Nos.1, 3, 4, 6 and 7.
The Indian Express (P) Ltd. & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an interim order passed by the Industrial Court in a complaint alleging unfair labour practices.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to set aside the Industrial Court's order granting interim relief to the respondents.
Filing Reason
The petitioners challenged the Industrial Court's order dated 19 September 2022 which restrained them from terminating the respondents' services without due process and directed seven days' notice before transfer.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court, Thane, passed the impugned order on 19 September 2022 on Application at Exhibit U-2 in Complaint (ULP) No.160 of 2022.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court's order granting interim relief was perverse or suffered from jurisdictional error.
Submissions/Arguments
Mr. Khambata, senior advocate for the petitioners, argued against the interim relief.
Ms. Singh, senior advocate for the respondents, supported the Industrial Court's order.
Ratio Decidendi
The Industrial Court's order granting interim relief did not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Judgment Excerpts
After having considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order dated 19 September 2022, it is seen that the order grants interim relief to the Respondents in the form of restraining the employer from terminating the services of its employees without following due process of law and from operating the order of transfer, if and when issued, for a period of seven days.
Procedural History
The respondents filed Complaint (ULP) No.160 of 2022 before the Industrial Court, Thane, alleging unfair labour practices. On an application at Exhibit U-2, the Industrial Court passed an interim order on 19 September 2022. The petitioners challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No.10814 of 2023 before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 30 January 2024.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act): Schedule II Items 1(a), 2(a), 3, 4(f); Schedule IV Items 3, 5, 9, 10
