Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC), challenged the judgment and order dated 05.10.2016 of the Industrial Court, Nagpur, which partly allowed Complaint (ULP) 136/2010 filed by respondent no.1, Gajanan Shankar Appa Urkade. The background of the dispute is that one Francis Ghorpade, an employee of MSRTC, borrowed Rs.1,38,600 from respondent no.2, MSRT Co-operative Bank Limited, on 19.05.2006. Respondent no.1 stood as a co-guarantor for the loan. Mr. Ghorpade took voluntary retirement (VRS) on 17.09.2008, which was accepted by MSRTC on 04.10.2008, and he was relieved from employment after receiving all legal dues and retiral benefits. The unpaid loan amount was not adjusted against his retiral benefits. Subsequently, MSRTC initiated recovery action against respondent no.1 alone, as the co-guarantor, by deducting loan installment amounts from his salary. Respondent no.1 then filed a complaint before the Industrial Court alleging unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The Industrial Court partly allowed the complaint, declaring that MSRTC had indulged in unfair labour practices and directing it to refund the deducted amounts. MSRTC challenged this order in the present writ petition. The legal issues considered were whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, given that respondent no.1 was not an employee of MSRTC but a co-guarantor, and whether the recovery action constituted an unfair labour practice. The petitioner argued that the Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction as there was no employer-employee relationship between MSRTC and respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 contended that the deductions from his salary were illegal. The court analyzed the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act and held that the Industrial Court's jurisdiction is limited to disputes between employers and employees. Since respondent no.1 was not an employee of MSRTC, the complaint was not maintainable. The court further noted that the recovery of loan from a guarantor is a civil matter and does not fall within the purview of unfair labour practices. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Industrial Court's order, and dismissed the complaint. The decision was in favor of the petitioner (MSRTC).
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Jurisdiction of Industrial Court - MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, Schedule IV Items 5 and 9 - The Industrial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint by a co-guarantor against the employer of the principal debtor, as the guarantor is not an employee of the employer and the recovery action does not constitute an unfair labour practice under the Act. Held that the complaint was not maintainable (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court could entertain a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act filed by a co-guarantor against the employer of the principal debtor, alleging unfair labour practices in recovering loan amounts from the guarantor's salary.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 05.10.2016 of the Industrial Court, Nagpur, is set aside. Complaint (ULP) 136/2010 stands dismissed. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
Law Points
- Unfair Labour Practice
- Guarantor
- Employer-Employee Relationship
- MRTU & PULP Act
- Schedule IV Items 5 and 9
- Recovery of Loan
- Co-guarantor
