Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Larsen and Toubro Limited, challenged an interlocutory order dated 26 July 2012 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, which stayed the transfer order dated 10 May 2012 transferring respondent no.1 (Antony Jokim Patekar) to the Security Department. The main complaint alleging unfair labour practice was pending. The Industrial Court allowed the interlocutory application, holding prima facie that the management engaged in unfair labour practice under items 3, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The High Court observed that while management has the right to transfer employees subject to contingencies, employees can challenge transfer orders if they amount to unfair labour practice. The Court noted that the Industrial Court did not record any reasons for its prima facie satisfaction, nor did it consider the management's submissions. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Industrial Court for fresh consideration, directing it to pass a reasoned order after hearing both sides within four weeks. The High Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits and that the Industrial Court should decide the application afresh without being influenced by the observations in the judgment.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Transfer of Employee - Interim Relief - Unfair Labour Practice - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act), Schedule IV Items 3, 9, 10 - The management challenged the Industrial Court's order staying the transfer of an employee to Security Department pending complaint. The High Court held that while management has the right to transfer, such orders can be challenged if they amount to unfair labour practice. The Industrial Court can grant interim relief if a prima facie case of unfair labour practice is made out. The impugned order was set aside as the Industrial Court did not record reasons for prima facie satisfaction. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in granting interim relief by staying the transfer order pending adjudication of the main complaint alleging unfair labour practice
Final Decision
The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 26 July 2012 and remanded the matter to the Industrial Court for fresh consideration. The Industrial Court was directed to pass a reasoned order after hearing both sides within four weeks from the date of the order. The High Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits and the Industrial Court should decide the application afresh without being influenced by the observations in the judgment.
Law Points
- Transfer order can be challenged if it amounts to unfair labour practice
- Industrial Court has jurisdiction to grant interim relief pending complaint
- Prima facie case of unfair labour practice can be established for interim protection
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (08) 31
Writ Petition No. 8215 of 2012
Mr. J. P. Cama, Senior Advocate with Ms. Madhavi Deshpande-Ravuri for the petitioner; Mr. S. S. Pakale with Mr. Avinash Belge for respondent no.1
Larsen and Toubro Limited
Antony Jokim Patekar, The President, Industrial Court, Bandra, Mumbai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an interlocutory order of the Industrial Court staying a transfer order pending complaint of unfair labour practice
Remedy Sought
Petitioner/management sought to set aside the Industrial Court's order dated 26 July 2012 which stayed the transfer of respondent no.1 to Security Department
Filing Reason
The Industrial Court granted interim relief without recording reasons for prima facie satisfaction of unfair labour practice
Previous Decisions
Industrial Court allowed the interlocutory application on 26 July 2012, staying the transfer order dated 10 May 2012
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in granting interim relief by staying the transfer order without recording reasons for prima facie satisfaction of unfair labour practice
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner/management argued that the Industrial Court did not record any reasons for its prima facie satisfaction and did not consider the management's submissions
Respondent no.1 supported the Industrial Court's order
Ratio Decidendi
While management has the right to transfer employees, such orders can be challenged if they amount to unfair labour practice. The Industrial Court can grant interim relief pending complaint, but must record reasons for prima facie satisfaction of unfair labour practice. The order must be a reasoned order considering the submissions of both parties.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioner/management has always a right and power to transfer the employees from one place to another, subject to contingencies and the requirement. However, this, in no way, be read to mean that the employees and workers just cannot challenge such transfer orders in any circumstances.
The Court also in no way debars entertaining and/or considering such application even for interlocutory order and/or protection. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
The impugned order is without any reason and without considering the submissions made by the Petitioner/management. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Procedural History
The respondent no.1 filed a complaint before the Industrial Court alleging unfair labour practice by the management. An interlocutory application was filed seeking stay of the transfer order dated 10 May 2012. The Industrial Court allowed the application on 26 July 2012. The management challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No. 8215 of 2012 before the Bombay High Court, which was heard and disposed of on 28 August 2012.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Schedule IV, Items 3, 9, 10
