Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (HUL), challenged an order dated 15/04/2011 passed by the Industrial Court, Akola Bench, in Reference (BIR) No.1/2008. The Industrial Court had allowed an application for interim relief filed by the respondent Union, directing HUL to pay Rs.3,500 per month to employees in TO, T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5 grades from 01/06/2008 until the decision of the reference, with arrears to be paid in installments. The factual background involves a wage settlement between HUL and the Union that operated from 01/06/2004 to 31/05/2008. The Union terminated the settlement and submitted a notice of change regarding service conditions and general demands. Conciliation failed, and the dispute was referred to the Industrial Court under Section 73A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (BIR Act). During the pendency of the reference, the Union filed an application for interim relief under Section 10(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act), claiming that the workmen were entitled to wage revision pending the reference. The Industrial Court allowed the application, holding that the workmen were entitled to interim relief as the company had not implemented the wage revision. HUL contended that the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to grant interim relief under Section 10(3) of the ID Act as the reference was under the BIR Act, and that the order was passed without considering the prima facie case or balance of convenience. The High Court examined the provisions of the BIR Act and the ID Act, noting that Section 10(3) of the ID Act is not applicable to references under the BIR Act. However, the court did not finally decide this issue as the order was set aside on other grounds. The High Court held that the Industrial Court had not considered the prima facie case or balance of convenience and had virtually prejudged the main reference by making observations on the merits. The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Industrial Court for fresh consideration of the interim relief application, without being influenced by the earlier observations. The High Court directed the Industrial Court to decide the application afresh within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Interim Relief - Section 10(3) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Grant of interim relief without considering prima facie case and balance of convenience - The Industrial Court allowed the application for interim relief directing payment of Rs.3,500 per month to certain grades of employees. The High Court held that the Tribunal had not considered the prima facie case or balance of convenience and had virtually prejudged the main reference. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration. (Paras 1-35) B) Industrial Law - Reference - Section 10(1)(d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Prejudging the main issue - The Tribunal, while granting interim relief, made observations on the merits of the reference, which could influence the final decision. The High Court held that the Tribunal should not have expressed any opinion on the merits of the reference while deciding the interim application. (Paras 20-25) C) Industrial Law - Settlement - Section 2(p) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Termination of settlement - The settlement between the Union and the Company was in operation from 01/06/2004 to 31/05/2008. The Union terminated the settlement and submitted a notice of change. The High Court noted that the Tribunal had not considered the effect of the termination of the settlement on the claim for interim relief. (Paras 4-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in granting interim relief of Rs.3,500 per month to the workmen without considering the prima facie case and balance of convenience, and whether the order was sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 15/04/2011 passed by the Industrial Court, and remanded the matter to the Industrial Court for fresh consideration of the interim relief application. The Industrial Court was directed to decide the application afresh within three months from the date of receipt of the order, without being influenced by the earlier observations.
Law Points
- Interim relief under Section 10(3) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- cannot be granted without considering the prima facie case and balance of convenience
- Tribunal must not prejudge the main reference while deciding interim relief
- Order granting interim relief must be reasoned and based on material on record
