Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a cooperative society of employees, filed a writ petition challenging an order of the Industrial Court, Yavatmal, which rejected their application for vacating stay granted to recovery to be made by the employer and for dismissal of the complaint. The respondents No.1 to 15, employees of Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal, and members of the petitioner society, had obtained loans from the society and authorized their employers to deduct installments from their salaries. They later 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 Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, claiming they never authorized such deductions. The Industrial Court granted a stay on recovery from their salaries. The petitioner society, not being a party to the complaint, applied for intervention and was allowed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application Exh.14 for vacation of stay and dismissal of the complaint for want of jurisdiction. The Industrial Court rejected this application. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as it related to unfair labour practices by the employer. The court noted that the petitioner society was not the employer and could not seek dismissal of the complaint on jurisdictional grounds. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Jurisdiction of Industrial Court - Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint by employees against their employer alleging unfair labour practices, including unauthorized deductions from salaries. The cooperative society, though not the employer, may intervene but cannot seek dismissal of the complaint on jurisdictional grounds. Held that the Industrial Court's order rejecting the application for vacation of stay and dismissal of complaint was proper (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint by employees against their employer alleging unfair labour practices in relation to deduction of loan installments, and whether the cooperative society has locus standi to seek dismissal of the complaint.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the petitioner's application was rightly rejected.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Industrial Court under MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV
- Locus standi of cooperative society as intervenor
- Maintainability of complaint by employees against employer for unauthorized deductions
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 431
WRIT PETITION NO.1984 OF 2009
Shri S.K. Tambde for Petitioner, Shri R.E. Moharir for Respondent No.18
Yavatmal Zilla Parishad Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit
Shaikh Rashid Sk. Hamid & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of Industrial Court rejecting application for vacation of stay and dismissal of complaint.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought vacation of stay granted to recovery from salaries of employees and dismissal of complaint for want of jurisdiction.
Filing Reason
Petitioner, a cooperative society, claimed that the Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint by employees against their employer regarding deduction of loan installments.
Previous Decisions
Industrial Court had granted stay on recovery from salaries of complainants; petitioner's application for intervention was allowed; application Exh.14 for vacation of stay and dismissal of complaint was rejected.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint by employees against their employer alleging unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, in relation to deduction of loan installments.
Whether the petitioner cooperative society has locus standi to seek dismissal of the complaint on jurisdictional grounds.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction as the dispute was between the society and its members, not between employer and employees.
Respondents contended that the complaint was against the employer for unfair labour practices and the Industrial Court had jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The Industrial Court has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint by employees against their employer alleging unfair labour practices under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. A cooperative society, though not the employer, may intervene but cannot seek dismissal of the complaint on jurisdictional grounds.
Judgment Excerpts
This petition by a cooperative society of employees is directed against an order passed by learned Member, Industrial Court, Yavatmal, rejecting their application for vacating stay granted to recovery to be made by the employer and also for dismissal of the complaint.
The facts, which are material for deciding this petition and about which there need not be any serious dispute, are as under : Respondents No.1 to 15 are employed by respondents No.16 to 18 Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal and its officers. Respondents No.1 to 15 are members of the petitioner society. They had obtained loans from the petitioner society and had also authorized their employers to deduct installments for repayment of the loans and to remit the installments to the petitioner society.
The petitioner applied for being joined as intervenor in the complaint. This application was allowed by the learned Member, Industrial Court. The petitioner then filed an application Exh.14 for vacation of stay and for dismissal of the complaint for want of jurisdiction.
The learned Member, Industrial Court, has rejected the application. The petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed.
Procedural History
Respondents No.1 to 15 filed a complaint before the Industrial Court, Yavatmal, alleging unfair labour practices by their employer. The Industrial Court granted a stay on recovery from their salaries. The petitioner society applied for intervention and was allowed. The petitioner then filed an application Exh.14 for vacation of stay and dismissal of the complaint for want of jurisdiction, which was rejected by the Industrial Court. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV
