Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vinod Pattar, a workman employed by M/s. EIH Ltd. (the Oberoi Hotel), challenged an interlocutory order dated 21/12/2021 passed by the Labour Court in a complaint under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The Labour Court had rejected the workman's application to stay the domestic enquiry proceedings. The workman approached the High Court by way of a writ petition. The core legal issue was whether the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Ashok Vishnu Kate, which permits challenge to the employer's proposed action under Item 1 of Schedule IV at the penultimate stage, could be interpreted to allow challenge to any interlocutory order passed by the Enquiry Officer at any stage of the domestic enquiry. The petitioner argued that the Labour Court erred in not staying the enquiry despite alleged procedural irregularities. The respondents contended that the petition was premature and that the workman could raise all objections after the enquiry report. The High Court, after hearing extensive submissions, held that the remedy under Item 1 of Schedule IV is available only when the employer proposes to take action based on the enquiry report, not against every interlocutory order during the enquiry. The Court dismissed the petition, observing that the workman could raise all contentions after the conclusion of the domestic enquiry.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Item 1 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Interlocutory Orders in Domestic Enquiry - The issue was whether every interlocutory order passed by an Enquiry Officer in a domestic enquiry can be challenged under Item 1 of Schedule IV before the Labour Court. The Court held that the law in Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Ashok Vishnu Kate permits challenge only at the penultimate stage when the employer proposes to take action, not at every intermediate stage. The petition challenging an interlocutory order was dismissed. (Paras 3, 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the law laid down in Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Ashok Vishnu Kate, that the proposed action of the employer which can be challenged under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act before the Labour Court at the penultimate stage, can be construed to mean that any order passed by the Enquiry Officer at any stage in the Domestic Enquiry can be questioned under Item 1 of Schedule IV before the Labour Court.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the remedy under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act is not available against every interlocutory order passed during a domestic enquiry. The workman can raise all contentions after the conclusion of the enquiry.
Law Points
- Unfair Labour Practice
- Domestic Enquiry
- Interlocutory Order
- Item 1 Schedule IV
- MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Ashok Vishnu Kate
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (01) 77
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.29586 OF 2021
Ms.Gayatri Singh, Sr. Counsel i/b V.G.Sreeram with Veda Thakkar for the Petitioner; Mr.Rajesh Gehani with Mahendra Agavekar and Shraddha Chavan for Respondent Nos.1 and 2
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an interlocutory order passed by the Labour Court in a complaint under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner-workman sought to challenge the Labour Court's order dated 21/12/2021 which rejected his application to stay the domestic enquiry proceedings.
Filing Reason
The workman alleged that the domestic enquiry was being conducted in violation of principles of natural justice and that the Labour Court erred in not staying the enquiry.
Previous Decisions
The Labour Court passed an interlocutory order on 21/12/2021 rejecting the workman's application for stay of the domestic enquiry.
Issues
Whether every interlocutory order passed by an Enquiry Officer in a domestic enquiry can be challenged under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act before the Labour Court.
Whether the law in Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Ashok Vishnu Kate permits challenge only at the penultimate stage when the employer proposes to take action.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Labour Court ought to have stayed the domestic enquiry as the Enquiry Officer was biased and the proceedings were vitiated.
Respondents argued that the petition was premature and that the workman could raise all objections after the enquiry report was submitted.
Ratio Decidendi
The law laid down in Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Ashok Vishnu Kate permits challenge to the employer's proposed action under Item 1 of Schedule IV only at the penultimate stage, i.e., when the employer proposes to take action based on the enquiry report. It does not allow challenge to every interlocutory order passed by the Enquiry Officer during the domestic enquiry.
Judgment Excerpts
The issue that I am deciding in this petition is, as to whether the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs Ashok Vishnu Kate and Ors., that the proposed action of the employer, which can be challenged under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 before the Labour Court at the penultimate stage, can be construed to mean that any order passed by the Enquiry Officer at any stage in the Domestic Enquiry, can be questioned under Item 1 of Schedule IV, before the Labour Court?
Procedural History
The petitioner-workman filed a complaint under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act before the Labour Court challenging the domestic enquiry proceedings. The Labour Court passed an interlocutory order on 21/12/2021 rejecting the workman's application for stay of the enquiry. The workman then filed the present writ petition before the High Court challenging that interlocutory order.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Item 1 of Schedule IV
