Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Spentex Industries Ltd. (formerly Indorama Textiles Ltd.), challenged the order dated 08/11/2010 passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur in Revision ULP No.173/2009, which rejected the petitioner's revision application and confirmed the order dated 03/12/2009 of the 2nd Labour Court, Nagpur. The respondent No.3, an employee, had filed Complaint ULP No.11/2009 alleging unfair labour practice under Items 1(a),(b),(c),(d),(f),(g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The complaint was filed at an intermediate stage when an Enquiry Officer had submitted a report against the employee, and the employee apprehended dismissal based on that report. The employee sought interim relief under Section 30(2) of the Act, and the Labour Court initially passed a status quo order on 11/02/2009, but later rejected the interim relief application on 09/03/2009. However, the Labour Court subsequently passed the impugned order dated 03/12/2009 granting interim relief of status quo. The petitioner's revision against that order was dismissed by the Industrial Court. The High Court, in the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, examined whether the Industrial Court's order suffered from any perversity or lack of jurisdiction. The Court noted that the Industrial Court had considered the material on record and found that the Labour Court's order was justified to protect the interests of the employee pending final adjudication. The High Court held that the Revisional Court's discretion could not be interfered with unless it was shown to be perverse or without jurisdiction, which was not the case. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the interim relief granted by the Labour Court was upheld.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Interim Relief - Section 30(2) of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Complaint filed by employee alleging unfair labour practice under Items 1(a),(b),(c),(d),(f),(g) of Schedule IV - Labour Court granted status quo order pending enquiry report - Industrial Court in revision confirmed the order - High Court held that the Revisional Court's order was not perverse or without jurisdiction and declined to interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India (Paras 1-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court erred in rejecting the revision application and confirming the Labour Court's order granting interim relief of status quo in a complaint alleging unfair labour practice at the intermediate stage of disciplinary proceedings.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order dated 08/11/2010 and the Labour Court's order dated 03/12/2009 granting interim relief of status quo.
Law Points
- Interim relief under Section 30(2) of MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971 can be granted to maintain status quo pending enquiry report
- Revisional Court's discretion not to be interfered with under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India unless perverse or without jurisdiction
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (07) 114
Writ Petition No.1072/2011
Shri S. G. Zinjarde for petitioner, Shri A.D.Sonak for respondent Nos.1 & 2, Shri Samudra Singh for respondent No.3
M/s Spentex Industries Ltd. (Formerly Indorama Textiles Ltd.)
1. Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur, 2. Judge, Second Labour Court, Nagpur, 3. Devanand S/o Shankar Mhaske
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 Industrial Court in revision confirming interim relief granted by Labour Court in a complaint alleging unfair labour practice.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (employer) sought quashing of Industrial Court's order dated 08/11/2010 and Labour Court's order dated 03/12/2009 granting interim relief of status quo.
Filing Reason
Petitioner challenged the interim relief granted to the employee (respondent No.3) in a complaint alleging unfair labour practice at the intermediate stage of disciplinary proceedings.
Previous Decisions
Labour Court initially passed status quo order on 11/02/2009, then rejected interim relief on 09/03/2009, but later granted interim relief on 03/12/2009. Industrial Court rejected revision against that order on 08/11/2010.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court erred in rejecting the revision application and confirming the Labour Court's order granting interim relief of status quo.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Revisional Court's order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Labour Court and Industrial Court erred in granting interim relief at an intermediate stage of disciplinary proceedings.
Respondent No.3 supported the orders, contending that the interim relief was necessary to protect his interests pending final adjudication.
Ratio Decidendi
The Revisional Court's order confirming interim relief under Section 30(2) of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 is not perverse or without jurisdiction; hence, no interference under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India is warranted.
Judgment Excerpts
The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 08/11/2010 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Nagpur in Revision ULP No.173/2009, by which order the Revision Application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected and consequently the order dated 03/12/2009 passed by the learned 2nd Labour Court, Nagpur came to be confirmed.
The Industrial Court has considered the material on record and has come to a conclusion that the order passed by the Labour Court is justified and does not warrant any interference in the revisional jurisdiction.
Procedural History
Respondent No.3 filed Complaint ULP No.11/2009 before Labour Court alleging unfair labour practice. Labour Court initially passed status quo order on 11/02/2009, then rejected interim relief on 09/03/2009, but later granted interim relief on 03/12/2009. Petitioner filed Revision ULP No.173/2009 before Industrial Court, which was rejected on 08/11/2010. Petitioner then filed Writ Petition No.1072/2011 before High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Section 30(2), Schedule IV Items 1(a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g)
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
