Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Esselworld Leisure Pvt. Ltd. (a private limited company operating a ride and amusement park, water kingdom, and bird park) along with its Human Resources Head and Director, challenged an interim order dated 24th April 2023 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court at Mumbai. The impugned order restrained the petitioners from selling, disposing, or removing the machinery, equipment, and properties of the petitioner-company during the pendency of Complaint (ULP) No. 41 of 2022 filed by the respondents, who are 25 employees of the company. The respondents alleged that the petitioners were engaging in unfair labour practices, including the illegal transfer and sale of assets, which would adversely affect their employment and rights. The Industrial Court, after hearing both sides, granted the interim injunction on the ground that a prima facie case existed, the balance of convenience was in favour of the employees, and irreparable loss would be caused if the assets were alienated. The petitioners contended that the Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction to grant such interim relief and that the order was passed without proper application of mind. The High Court, after considering the submissions, held that the Industrial Court has inherent power to grant interim relief under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, and that the impugned order was neither perverse nor arbitrary. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the interim injunction and directing the Industrial Court to expedite the final hearing of the complaint.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Interim Relief - Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court has jurisdiction to grant interim relief in a complaint of unfair labour practice to protect the subject matter of the complaint and prevent irreparable loss to employees. The court held that the power to grant interim relief is inherent and necessary to make the final relief effective, and the impugned order restraining the employer from selling assets during pendency of the complaint was justified. (Paras 1-10) B) Industrial Law - Transfer of Assets - Prima Facie Case - Section 30(2) of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The employer's attempt to sell machinery and equipment during the pendency of the complaint raised a strong prima facie case of unfair labour practice. The court held that the balance of convenience was in favour of granting injunction to protect the employees' interests, as the employer had not shown any urgency or necessity for the sale. (Paras 11-20) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Interference with Interim Orders - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The High Court will not interfere with an interim order passed by the Industrial Court unless it is perverse, arbitrary, or suffers from a patent error of law. The court held that the impugned order was based on material on record and did not warrant interference under Article 226. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court has jurisdiction to grant interim relief restraining the employer from selling, disposing, or removing machinery, equipment, and properties during the pendency of a complaint alleging unfair labour practices, and whether the impugned order suffers from any perversity or error of law warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the interim order of the Industrial Court. The court held that the Industrial Court has jurisdiction to grant interim relief under Section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, and the impugned order was neither perverse nor arbitrary. The Industrial Court was directed to expedite the final hearing of the complaint.
Law Points
- Interim relief
- Unfair labour practice
- Jurisdiction of Industrial Court
- Section 30(2) of MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable loss
- Transfer of assets during pendency of complaint
