Case Note & Summary
The appeals arose from orders of the Industrial Court, Nashik, granting interim stay of transfer orders of two Branch Managers of a multi-state cooperative bank. The bank, appellant, had transferred the respondents to Hyderabad and Surat respectively. The respondents filed complaints under the Industrial Disputes Act, alleging victimization due to union activities and seeking interim stay of the transfers. The bank raised a preliminary objection that the respondents were not 'workmen' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and thus the complaints were not maintainable. The Industrial Court by order dated 9 July 2010 allowed the interim applications and stayed the transfers, holding that a prima facie case existed, while deferring the maintainability issue for trial with all other issues. The bank challenged this order in writ petitions. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petitions on 18 October 2010, noting that the respondents were not informed at the time of appointment about the possibility of out-of-state transfers, and that the Industrial Court committed no error in staying the transfers. In the Letters Patent Appeals, the bank contended that the Industrial Court erred in granting interim relief without first deciding the contentious issue of maintainability, relying on an earlier order in Writ Petition No. 6041 of 2007. The respondents argued that the earlier order pertained to termination, not transfer, and that the interim stay was justified because they were not informed about out-of-state transfers. The Division Bench observed that there was a serious dispute about the maintainability of the complaints based on the respondents' status as workmen, with the bank placing evidence such as salary slips and duty lists. Since the Industrial Court's jurisdiction hinged on that status, it was appropriate to decide that issue first. The court held that the Industrial Court ought to have framed a preliminary issue on maintainability, and without interfering with the interim order itself, set aside the Single Judge's order and directed the Industrial Court to frame such preliminary issue within four weeks, allowing parties to lead evidence. Interim relief was continued for four weeks but made contingent upon the decision on the preliminary issue; if the issue was decided against the respondents, interim relief would automatically end, otherwise the complaints would be decided within three months thereafter. The appeals were partly allowed with parties to bear their own costs.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes - Preliminary Issue of Jurisdiction - Maintainability of complaint under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Where employer disputes that the complainants are 'workmen', the Industrial Court should frame a preliminary issue on maintainability before granting interim relief; failure to do so may lead to irregular exercise of jurisdiction. The High Court set aside the Single Judge's order and directed the Industrial Court to frame and decide such preliminary issue, with interim relief contingent on the outcome. If the respondents are held not to be workmen, the interim relief would automatically cease. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court should have first determined the maintainability of the complaints on the ground that the respondents were not 'workmen' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act before granting interim relief.
Final Decision
Appeals partly allowed; Single Judge's order set aside; Industrial Court directed to frame a preliminary issue on maintainability of complaints based on whether respondents are 'workmen'; interim relief continued for four weeks but contingent on decision on preliminary issue; if maintainability held against respondents, interim relief ceases automatically; if held in their favour, complaints to be disposed within three months thereafter. Parties to bear their own costs.
Law Points
- Preliminary issue as to jurisdiction must be decided when a serious question of maintainability arises
- especially when the status of complainants as 'workmen' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 is disputed
- and interim relief should not be granted without addressing such jurisdictional question.
