Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Neena B. Rangnekar, was employed as a Junior Clerk with respondent no.1 Trust from 1 February 1989 and later promoted to Senior Clerk. She alleged that the respondents imposed penalties without natural justice between June 2014 and March 2015. On 18 April 2015, she filed Complaint (ULP) No. 181 of 2015 before the Industrial Court, Mumbai, under the MRTU & PULP Act. After service of the complaint, her services were terminated on 20 April 2015 with one month's salary in lieu of notice. She amended the complaint to challenge the termination as retrenchment amounting to unfair labour practice under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV. The respondents filed a preliminary objection challenging maintainability, arguing that the remedy lay under Section 9 of the MEPS Act. The Industrial Court framed a preliminary issue and by judgment dated 12 June 2018 held the complaint not maintainable before it, granting liberty to approach the Labour Court. The petitioner challenged this order under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court examined the definitions under the MRTU & PULP Act and the MEPS Act. It noted that Item 1 of Schedule IV defines 'retrenchment' as termination by employer for any reason other than punishment, and such complaints are exclusively triable by the Industrial Court under Section 5. Items 9 and 10 relate to termination in colourable exercise of power, triable by the Labour Court. The court held that the petitioner's termination, being without following Section 5 of the MEPS Act, amounted to retrenchment under Item 1, and thus the Industrial Court had jurisdiction. The court set aside the Industrial Court's order and remanded the complaint for adjudication on merits.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Jurisdiction - Retrenchment - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Schedule IV Items 1, 9, 10 - The issue was whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging retrenchment as an unfair labour practice by a school employee. The court held that retrenchment falls under Item 1 of Schedule IV, which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Industrial Court, and the MEPS Act does not oust such jurisdiction. (Paras 3, 12-15) B) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Retrenchment - Definition - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Schedule IV Item 1 - The court interpreted 'retrenchment' under Item 1 to include termination by employer for any reason other than punishment, and held that the petitioner's termination without following Section 5 of the MEPS Act constituted retrenchment. (Paras 12-15) C) Industrial Law - Jurisdiction - Industrial Court vs. Labour Court - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Sections 5, 7, Schedule IV Items 1, 9, 10 - The court clarified that complaints alleging unfair labour practices under Item 1 of Schedule IV (retrenchment) are exclusively triable by the Industrial Court, while Items 9 and 10 (termination in colourable exercise of power) fall within Labour Court's jurisdiction. (Paras 12-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner's case of retrenchment falls within or outside the purview of Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, determining jurisdiction of Labour Court or Industrial Court.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Industrial Court's order dated 12 June 2018, and directed the Industrial Court to decide the complaint on merits in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Industrial Court under MRTU & PULP Act
- Retrenchment as unfair labour practice under Items 1
- 9
- 10 of Schedule IV
- Applicability of MEPS Act not ousting MRTU & PULP Act
