Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, M/s. Abbott India Ltd., a pharmaceutical company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and its officer Mr. Jitendra Wadhwani, challenged an order dated 1 January 2024 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai. The Industrial Court had rejected the Petitioner's application raising a preliminary issue regarding territorial jurisdiction in Complaint (ULP) No. 192 of 2023 filed by the Respondent, All India Abbott Employees Union. The Respondent-Union had filed the complaint on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Kumar Dixit, a Territory Business Developer employed by the Petitioner, who was posted at Raebareli in Uttar Pradesh. The complaint alleged unfair labour practices concerning a change in his territory configuration. The Petitioner contended that since Mr. Dixit was employed and worked outside Maharashtra, the Industrial Court established under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) lacked territorial jurisdiction. The Respondent-Union argued that the Petitioner's registered office and establishment were in Mumbai, Maharashtra, and therefore the Industrial Court had jurisdiction. The Court noted that this was not the first time the issue of jurisdiction had been raised between the parties; previous legal battles had resulted in decisions by the Bombay High Court upholding the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court. The Court examined the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act and the precedents cited. It held that the Industrial Court's jurisdiction under the Act is determined by the location of the employer's establishment, not the place of employment of the individual employee. Since the Petitioner's establishment was in Maharashtra, the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the Union on behalf of its member, even though the employee worked outside the state. The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order and confirming its territorial jurisdiction.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Territorial Jurisdiction - MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Section 5, 7 - The Industrial Court under the MRTU & PULP Act has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint if the employer's establishment is situated within the State of Maharashtra, even if the employee concerned works outside Maharashtra. The Court held that the place of employment of the individual employee is not the sole determinant of jurisdiction; the location of the employer's establishment is relevant. (Paras 2, 10-15) B) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Complaint by Union - MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Section 28 - A union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 can file a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act on behalf of its members. The Industrial Court has jurisdiction to entertain such complaint if the union's members are employed in the establishment situated in Maharashtra. (Paras 2, 10-15) C) Industrial Law - Precedent - Jurisdiction - MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The Court relied on previous decisions of the Bombay High Court in similar matters between the same parties, which had upheld the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court. (Paras 10-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court established under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a complaint filed by a union on behalf of an employee who is posted outside Maharashtra, when the employer's registered office is in Maharashtra.
Final Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order dated 1 January 2024 and confirming that the Industrial Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction of Industrial Court under MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Unfair labour practice complaint by union
- Place of employment vs. place of establishment
- Cause of action
