Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from industrial disputes between the petitioner employer, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and several dismissed workmen. The petitioner operated a factory at Shindewadi, Shirval, employing approximately 172 permanent workmen. In June 2017, the respondent workmen allegedly joined a rival union, Engineering Kamgar Sangh, leading to disputes with the recognized union, Lawkim Kamgar Sangh. The petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No.79 of 2019 under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, alleging illegal go-slow, obstruction, and creation of a reign of terror. The union filed Complaint (ULP) No.93 of 2019 alleging that 58 workmen were not allowed to join duties; pursuant to consent terms, those workers were permitted to join duties on 3 August 2019. The petitioner later alleged continued misconduct, including go-slow, low output, and missing from workplace, and issued a show cause notice on 20 February 2020, followed by a chargesheet on 21 August 2020 citing misconduct under Model Standing Order No.24(a), (e), (h) and (l). Without holding a domestic inquiry, the petitioner dismissed the respondents on 20 November 2020. The respondents raised an industrial dispute, and after conciliation failed, the appropriate government referred the matter to the Labour Court on 21 October 2021. The respondents filed statements of claim and an interim relief application. By order dated 28 April 2022, the Labour Court directed temporary reinstatement and payment of wages from the date of resumption. The petitioner challenged this in Writ Petition No.7482 of 2022, and the High Court by order dated 29 June 2022 set aside the interim order on the ground that it amounted to granting final relief, but granted liberty to seek other interim relief. The respondents then filed a second interim application seeking payment of wages during pendency of the reference. By impugned order dated 9 November 2022, the Labour Court directed the petitioner to deposit subsistence allowance at 50% of monthly gross wages from the date of dismissal until decision of reference, and allowed withdrawal. The Labour Court reasoned that dismissal without domestic inquiry and the employer's option to justify dismissal before the Labour Court created a deemed employer-employee relationship, and applied Section 10A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 analogously. The petitioner filed the present writ petitions challenging this order. The High Court heard the matter, reserved judgment on 12 June 2023, and pronounced the judgment on 6 October 2023. The provided judgment excerpt does not include the final operative decision of the High Court.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Interim Relief - Subsistence Allowance Pending Industrial Reference - Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, Section 10A - Labour Court directed employer to deposit subsistence allowance at 50% of monthly gross wages from dismissal date till decision of reference on ground that workmen were dismissed without domestic inquiry and employer had option to justify dismissal before Labour Court, creating deemed employer-employee relationship; High Court was called upon to examine legality of such interim order after earlier order set aside reinstatement - Held that Labour Court applied analogy of Section 10A in granting subsistence allowance (Paras 3.10-3.13).
B) Labour Law - Reinstatement as Interim Relief - Final Relief Principle - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Earlier interim order directing temporary reinstatement and payment of wages was set aside by High Court because it amounted to grant of final relief; liberty granted to seek interim relief other than reinstatement - Held that interim relief must not amount to final relief (Paras 3.9-3.10).
C) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practices - Complaint and Consent Terms - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Items 1, 2(a), 2(b), 5 and 6 of Schedule III - Petitioner filed complaint alleging go-slow and obstruction; union filed complaint alleging denial of work; consent terms allowed 58 workmen to join duties; subsequent allegations of breach led to disciplinary proceedings - Held that breaches of consent terms were alleged and disciplinary action followed (Paras 3.3-3.6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Labour Court can grant subsistence allowance to dismissed workmen as interim relief pending adjudication of industrial reference, especially after earlier High Court order set aside reinstatement but granted liberty to seek other interim relief; Whether Section 10A of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 applies to dismissed workmen
Law Points
- Interim relief must not amount to final relief
- subsistence allowance payable when dismissal without domestic inquiry and employer exercises option to justify before Labour Court creates deemed employer-employee relationship
- Section 10A of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act
- 1946 can be applied analogously
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (10) 101
Writ Petition No.202 of 2023 with Writ Petition No.998 of 2023, Writ Petition No.207 of 2023, Writ Petition No.205 of 2023, Writ Petition No.209 of 2023, Writ Petition No.210 of 2023, Writ Petition No.1081 of 2023, Writ Petition No.195 of 2023, Writ Petition No.203 of 2023, Writ Petition No.206 of 2023, Writ Petition No.213 of 2023, Writ Petition No.194 of 2023, Writ Petition No.218 of 2023, Writ Petition No.212 of 2023, Writ Petition No.208 of 2023, Writ Petition No.220 of 2023, Writ Petition No.204 of 2023
Mr. J.P. Cama, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Varun Joshi, Mr. Chetan Alai, Ms. Rama Somani i/by Mr. Chetan Alai for Petitioner; Mr. Nitin A. Kulkarni for Respondent
Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (Lawkim Motors Group)
Sanjay Gangaram Dagade, Sunil Murlidhar Kamble, Jivan Baban Kothavale, Jalindhar Sopan Kondalkar, Ankush Dattatraya Malusare, Suresh Harishchandra Kamble, Krishna Appa Sonawane, Vikas Krishnaji Gadhave, Dattatray Revaji Bangar, Nitin Uttam Pawar, Nilkant Chandrakant Bhutkar, Ashok Bhanudas Gaikwad, Vijay Ashru Shinde, Sanjay Hanuman Chavan, Vinoba Mugutrao Gaikwad, Navnath Kashinath Bhosale, Tanaji Yashwant Dhamal
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging Labour Court's interim order directing employer to pay subsistence allowance to dismissed workmen pending adjudication of industrial dispute.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner employer sought quashing/setting aside of Labour Court order dated 9 November 2022 directing deposit of subsistence allowance at 50% of monthly gross wages from date of dismissal till decision of reference, and allowing workmen to withdraw same.
Filing Reason
Petitioner contended that Labour Court erred in granting subsistence allowance as interim relief while reference pending, as workmen were dismissed and no employer-employee relationship existed; previous High Court order had set aside reinstatement interim relief but granted liberty to seek other interim relief.
Previous Decisions
Labour Court by order 28 April 2022 allowed first interim application directing temporary reinstatement and payment of wages; High Court in Writ Petition No.7482 of 2022 and connected matters set aside that order on 29 June 2022 as it amounted to final relief, granting liberty to move for other interim relief; thereafter Labour Court by impugned order 9 November 2022 directed 50% subsistence allowance.
Issues
Whether Labour Court can grant subsistence allowance to dismissed workmen as interim relief pending adjudication of industrial reference, especially after earlier High Court order set aside reinstatement but granted liberty to seek other interim relief
Whether Section 10A of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 applies to dismissed workmen
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that Labour Court's order of subsistence allowance effectively granted final relief and was contrary to earlier High Court order
Labour Court reasoned that dismissal without domestic inquiry and option to justify creates deemed relationship and Section 10A analogy applies
Judgment Excerpts
Since common questions crop up for consideration in all these Petitions, arising out of identical facts, these Petitions were heard together and are decided by a common judgment. Writ Petition No.202 of 2023 is considered as the lead Petition and the facts in the said Petition are noted for the purpose of determination.
By an order dated 28 April 2022, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Satara was persuaded to allow the interim application and direct the Petitioner – first party to allow the Respondents – second party, to temporarily join their duties till the final disposal of the main reference and to pay wages from the date the second party resumed work.
Being aggrieved, the Petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No.7482 of 2022 and connected matters. By an order dated 29 June 2022, this Court allowed the Petitions by setting aside the interim order passed by the Labour Court as the said interim relief amounted to grant of final relief. However, the Respondents- workmen were granted liberty to move the Labour Court seeking interim relief other than that of reinstatement in service.
The learned Presiding Officer was of the view that the Respondents-workmen were dismissed without holding domestic inquiry, in violation of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and the exercise of option of justifying the dismissal order by establishing the misconduct before the Labour Court gave rise to a deemed relationship of employer-employee and, thus, subsistence allowance can be paid on the analogy of Section 10A of the Act, 1946.
Procedural History
In June 2017, respondent workmen allegedly joined Engineering Kamgar Sangh, leading to dispute over representation with recognized union Lawkim Kamgar Sangh. Complaint (ULP) No.24 of 2017 was filed by Engineering Kamgar Sangh. Petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No.79 of 2019 alleging unfair labour practices under Items 1, 2(a), 2(b), 5 and 6 of Schedule III of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Union filed Complaint (ULP) No.93 of 2019 alleging denial of work; consent terms allowed 58 workers to join duties on 3 August 2019. Petitioner issued show cause notice on 20 February 2020, reply on 1 March 2020, chargesheet on 21 August 2020, and dismissal order on 20 November 2020. Industrial dispute was raised, conciliation failed, and reference was made to Labour Court on 21 October 2021. Labour Court by order dated 28 April 2022 directed temporary reinstatement and wages. High Court by order dated 29 June 2022 set aside that order and granted liberty to seek other interim relief. Labour Court by impugned order dated 9 November 2022 directed 50% subsistence allowance. Petitioner filed writ petitions; matter listed on 10 January 2023, reserved on 12 June 2023, and pronounced on 6 October 2023.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Items 1, 2(a), 2(b), 5 and 6 of Schedule III
- Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946: Section 10A, Model Standing Order No.24(a), (e), (h), (l)
