Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dhannu Bhagu Rathod, was a workman who had his termination challenged before the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No.2/2015. The Labour Court, by judgment and award dated 11.02.2016, answered the reference in the affirmative, granting reinstatement with continuity and 50% back wages. When the employer failed to implement the award, the petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No.298/2016 before the Industrial Court, Jalna, under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act), alleging that non-implementation of the award constituted an unfair labour practice. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint on 09.10.2018, holding that it was barred under Section 59 of the MRTU & PULP Act, as the petitioner could have sought execution under Section 11(9) or Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act). The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the remedies available to the employee. It noted that Section 11(9) of the ID Act allows execution of an award as a decree of a civil court under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, while Section 29 prescribes penalty for breach of settlement or award. However, Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act also provides an effective remedy for implementation of awards, settlements, or agreements. The court held that the doctrine of election applies, permitting the employee to choose between the remedies under the ID Act and the ULP complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act. The Industrial Court's reliance on Section 59 was misplaced as the petitioner had not previously invoked the ID Act remedies for execution. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Industrial Court's order, and restored the complaint for fresh adjudication on merits. The court directed the Industrial Court to decide the complaint expeditiously, preferably within six months.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Implementation of Award - Doctrine of Election - MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, Schedule IV Item 9, Section 59 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 11(9), Section 29 - The petitioner, having obtained a Labour Court award for reinstatement with back wages, filed a complaint under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act for non-implementation. The Industrial Court dismissed it citing bar under Section 59. The High Court held that the doctrine of election applies, allowing the employee to choose between remedies under Section 11(9) or Section 29 of the ID Act and the ULP complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act. The Industrial Court's order was set aside and the complaint was restored. (Paras 1-6) B) Industrial Law - Execution of Award - Alternative Remedies - MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, Schedule IV Item 9 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 11(9), Section 29 - The High Court clarified that Section 29 of the ID Act is not a remedy but a penalty provision, and Section 11(9) provides for execution of award as a civil decree. However, Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act is an effective remedy for implementation of awards. The employee can elect either remedy. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the complaint under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 on the ground of bar under Section 59 of the said Act, when the petitioner sought implementation of a Labour Court award.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Industrial Court's order dated 09.10.2018, and restored Complaint (ULP) No.298/2016 to the file of the Industrial Court for fresh adjudication on merits. The Industrial Court was directed to decide the complaint expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Doctrine of Election
- Unfair Labour Practice
- Implementation of Award
- MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Section 11(9)
- Section 29
- Item 9 Schedule IV
