Case Note & Summary
The judgment involves multiple writ petitions filed by employees (Sanjay Shalikram Ingle and others) against M/s. Lokmat Newspapers Private Ltd., challenging a common order dated 21/7/2009 passed by the Industrial Court at Nagpur in ULP Complaints Nos.209 to 215 of 2009. The Industrial Court had held that in previous litigation between the parties, the entitlement to permanency was already decided, and thus the employees were entitled to permanency and back wages. The petitioners sought to challenge this order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, after hearing arguments, found that the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to grant permanency or back wages under the MRTU Act, as such reliefs are not within the scope of Section 28 read with Schedule IV items 7 and 9. The court noted that the Industrial Court's finding on res judicata was correct, but the relief granted was beyond its jurisdiction. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the Industrial Court's finding on entitlement but setting aside the relief of permanency and back wages as being without jurisdiction.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Jurisdiction of Industrial Court - Permanency - The Industrial Court under the MRTU Act has no jurisdiction to grant permanency or back wages, as such reliefs are beyond the scope of Section 28 read with Schedule IV items 7 and 9 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The court held that the Industrial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by granting permanency and back wages. (Paras 1-5)
B) Res Judicata - Previous Litigation - The Industrial Court's finding that the entitlement to permanency was already decided in previous litigation was upheld, but the High Court clarified that the Industrial Court's order granting permanency was without jurisdiction. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to grant permanency and back wages in ULP complaints under the MRTU Act, and whether the previous litigation between the parties operated as res judicata.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the Industrial Court's finding on entitlement but setting aside the relief of permanency and back wages as being without jurisdiction.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Industrial Court under MRTU Act
- Res Judicata
- Permanency
- Back Wages
- Unfair Labour Practices
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (03) 181
Writ Petition No.4816, 4792, 4802, 4904, 5080, 5085 & 5152 of 2009
Mr. S.D. Thakur for Petitioners, Mr. V.P. Marpakwar for Respondent
Sanjay Shalikram Ingle and others
M/s. Lokmat, Proprietors M/s. Lokmat Newspapers Private Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Industrial Court in ULP complaints.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to challenge the Industrial Court's order dated 21/7/2009 which held that they were entitled to permanency and back wages based on previous litigation.
Filing Reason
The Industrial Court held that the entitlement to permanency was already decided in previous litigation, and the petitioners sought to challenge that finding.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court had passed an order on 21/7/2009 in ULP Complaints Nos.209 to 215 of 2009, holding that the entitlement to permanency was already decided in previous litigation.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to grant permanency and back wages under the MRTU Act.
Whether the previous litigation operated as res judicata.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the Industrial Court erred in holding that the entitlement to permanency was already decided.
The respondent argued that the Industrial Court's order was correct and within jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The Industrial Court under the MRTU Act has no jurisdiction to grant permanency or back wages, as such reliefs are beyond the scope of Section 28 read with Schedule IV items 7 and 9.
Judgment Excerpts
Industrial Court has held that in previous litigation between parties the entitlement to permanency was already decided.
Challenge in these Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India is to common order dated 21/7/2009 passed below Exh. 2 and 12 by the Industrial Court at Nagpur in ULP Complaints Nos.209 to 215 of 2009 filed under Section 28 read with schedule IV items 7 and 9 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
Procedural History
The Industrial Court at Nagpur passed a common order on 21/7/2009 in ULP Complaints Nos.209 to 215 of 2009, holding that the entitlement to permanency was already decided in previous litigation. The petitioners filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging that order. The High Court reserved judgment on 17.02.2010 and pronounced on 12.03.2010.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Section 28, Schedule IV items 7 and 9
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
