Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, UltraTech Cement Ltd., successor to M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited, challenged an order dated 04.01.2010 of the Labour Court, Chandrapur, which rejected its application for dismissal of Complaint (ULP) No. 186 of 1993. The petitioner contended that being a cement industry declared as a controlled industry under Section 2(ee) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the appropriate Government is the Central Government, and therefore the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (MRTU & PULP Act) does not apply to it. The respondent, Shrinivas Narayanrao Moharil, had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 2558 of 1986 challenging an order on a preliminary issue, which was disposed of on 12th March 2009 with directions to expedite the complaint. The High Court noted that it was not in dispute that vide Notification dated 08.11.1977, the cement industry was declared a controlled industry. The petitioner argued that delegation of powers under Section 39 of the ID Act to the State Government does not make the State Government the appropriate Government. The court observed that the issue of jurisdiction was a preliminary issue and the Labour Court had not yet decided it. The High Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits, dismissed the petition as premature, directing the Labour Court to decide the preliminary issue of jurisdiction within three months. The court held that the petition was premature and the Labour Court should first determine whether it has jurisdiction.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Jurisdiction of Labour Court - Controlled Industry - Appropriate Government - Section 2(ee) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Section 2(3) of MRTU & PULP Act - The petitioner-employer, a cement industry declared as controlled industry under Section 2(a)(i) of the ID Act, contended that the appropriate Government is the Central Government, and therefore the MRTU & PULP Act does not apply. The Labour Court rejected the application for dismissal. The High Court held that the delegation of powers under Section 39 of the ID Act does not change the status of the appropriate Government; the Central Government remains the appropriate Government. However, the court did not finally decide the jurisdictional issue and dismissed the petition as premature, directing the Labour Court to decide the preliminary issue of jurisdiction first. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court, Chandrapur has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act against a cement industry declared as a controlled industry under Section 2(ee) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, where the appropriate Government is the Central Government.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition as premature, directing the Labour Court to decide the preliminary issue of jurisdiction within three months. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the jurisdictional issue.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Labour Court under MRTU & PULP Act
- Controlled Industry
- Appropriate Government
- Delegation of Powers under Section 39 of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (02) 107
Writ Petition No. 144 of 2010
Shri M.R. Pillai for petitioner, Shri H.V. Thakur for respondent
Shrinivas Narayanrao Moharil
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India challenging order of Labour Court rejecting application for dismissal of complaint.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of Labour Court order dated 04.01.2010 and dismissal of Complaint (ULP) No. 186 of 1993 for lack of jurisdiction.
Filing Reason
Petitioner contended that Labour Court had no jurisdiction as the appropriate Government for the controlled industry (cement) is Central Government, making MRTU & PULP Act inapplicable.
Previous Decisions
Earlier, the respondent had filed Writ Petition No. 2558 of 1986 challenging an order on preliminary issue, which was disposed of on 12.03.2009 with directions to expedite the complaint.
Issues
Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under MRTU & PULP Act against a controlled industry where the appropriate Government is the Central Government.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that cement industry is a controlled industry under Section 2(ee) of ID Act, so appropriate Government is Central Government; delegation under Section 39 does not make State Government appropriate; hence MRTU & PULP Act does not apply.
Respondent argued that the issue of jurisdiction is a preliminary issue and the Labour Court should decide it first; the petition is premature.
Ratio Decidendi
The petition challenging the Labour Court's order rejecting an application for dismissal on jurisdictional grounds is premature when the Labour Court has not yet decided the preliminary issue of jurisdiction. The appropriate course is to direct the Labour Court to decide the jurisdictional issue first.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner – employer has challenged the order dated 04.01.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Chandrapur, below Exh. 86 in Complaint (ULP) No. 186 of 1993 by which its application for dismissal of Complaint (ULP) has been rejected.
It is not in dispute that vide Notification dated 08.11.1977, for the purposes of Section 2(a)(i) of the Act, the industry engaged in manufacture and production of cement has been declared as 'controlled industry'.
Procedural History
The respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No. 186 of 1993 before the Labour Court, Chandrapur. The petitioner filed an application (Exh. 86) for dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Labour Court rejected that application on 04.01.2010. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition on 15.02.2010. Earlier, the respondent had filed Writ Petition No. 2558 of 1986 which was disposed of on 12.03.2009 with directions to expedite the complaint.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(a)(i), Section 2(ee), Section 39
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act: Section 2(3)
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
