Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nitin s/o Namdeorao Pimpalde, filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging an order dated 19/5/2011 passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati, which rejected his Application for stay pending Revision Application (ULP) No.40/2011. The petitioner had originally filed a Complaint (ULP) before the Labour Court alleging unfair labour practices by the respondents, the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Achalpur, and its Secretary. The Labour Court dismissed the complaint by judgment and order dated 15/4/2011. Against this dismissal, the petitioner filed a Revision Application before the Industrial Court under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. During the pendency of the complaint, an interim order had been operating in favour of the petitioner, and it continued for two months even after the revision was filed. The Industrial Court rejected the stay application on the ground that the petitioner was a daily wager who had not worked for 240 days and that his initial appointment was not in consonance with the Rules and Regulations applicable to the Agricultural Produce Market Committee. The High Court observed that since a stay was already operating from the date of filing the complaint and for two months in the revision, the Industrial Court ought to have continued the stay until the disposal of the revision application. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed that the stay granted earlier shall continue till the disposal of the revision application. The rule was made absolute accordingly.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Stay Pending Revision - Interim Relief - The petitioner challenged the rejection of his stay application pending revision before the Industrial Court under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The Labour Court had dismissed his complaint, but an interim order had been operating in his favour throughout the proceedings - The Industrial Court rejected the stay on grounds that the petitioner was a daily wager who had not worked for 240 days and his initial appointment was not in consonance with applicable rules - The High Court held that since stay was already operating from the date of filing the complaint and for two months in revision, the Industrial Court ought to have continued the stay until disposal of the revision - The impugned order was set aside and the stay was directed to continue (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court erred in rejecting the stay application pending revision, given that an interim order was already operating in favour of the petitioner.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 19/5/2011 of the Industrial Court, and directed that the stay granted earlier shall continue till the disposal of the revision application. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Interim relief
- stay application
- revision
- unfair labour practice
- daily wager
- 240 days
- appointment rules
