Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ petition filed by the National Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE) challenging the order of the Industrial Court, Mumbai, which allowed the application of the NITIE Employees' Union for registration as a recognized union under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The principal issue was whether the 'appropriate Government' in relation to NITIE is the Central Government or the State Government under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Petitioner argued that NITIE is an industry carried on under the authority of the Central Government, as it is funded and controlled by the Ministry of Human Resource Development. The Respondent-Union contended that NITIE is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is not a department of the Central Government, and the Central Government does not exercise deep and pervasive control. The court analyzed the definition of 'appropriate Government' and the tests laid down in precedents such as 'Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar' and 'Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. A. Radha'. The court held that NITIE is not an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government because it is an autonomous body registered as a society, and the control exercised by the Central Government is regulatory and not pervasive. Therefore, the appropriate Government is the State Government, and the Industrial Court's order was upheld. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Appropriate Government - Section 2(a) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Interpretation - The term 'appropriate Government' in relation to an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government means the Central Government. The court examined whether the Petitioner, National Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE), is an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government. Held that NITIE is not an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government as it is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and not a department of the Central Government. The Central Government does not exercise deep and pervasive control over NITIE. Therefore, the appropriate Government is the State Government. (Paras 2-30)
B) Industrial Law - Trade Union Registration - Section 11 Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Maintainability - The application for registration as a recognized union under Section 11 of the MRTU & PULP Act is maintainable only if the appropriate Government is the State Government. Since the court held that the appropriate Government for NITIE is the State Government, the Industrial Court's order allowing the application of the Respondent No.1-Union was upheld. (Paras 2-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the 'appropriate Government' in relation to the Petitioner (National Institute of Industrial Engineering) is the Central Government or the State Government for the purposes of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consequently the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of the Industrial Court dated 28-06-2002, holding that the appropriate Government for the Petitioner is the State Government and the application of the Respondent No.1-Union under Section 11 of the MRTU & PULP Act was maintainable.
Law Points
- Interpretation of 'appropriate Government' under Section 2(a) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government
- Applicability of MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (02) 17
WRIT PETITION NO. 2388 OF 2002
A.A. Sayed, Smt. Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
Mr.Rahul Nerlekar a/w Mr.A.M.Nathani and Amreen Shaikh i/b A.M.Nathani & Tanu Mehta Tiwari for the Petitioner, Mr.Ashok D. Shetty For Respondent No. 1
National Institute Of Industrial Engineering
Nitie Employees' Union & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Industrial Court allowing registration of a trade union.
Remedy Sought
The Petitioner sought to quash the order of the Industrial Court dated 28-06-2002 which allowed the application of the Respondent No.1-Union for registration as a recognized union under Section 11 of the MRTU & PULP Act.
Filing Reason
The Petitioner contended that the Industrial Court erred in holding that the appropriate Government for the Petitioner is the State Government, whereas according to the Petitioner, the appropriate Government is the Central Government, and therefore the application under the MRTU & PULP Act was not maintainable.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court, Mumbai, by its judgment and order dated 28-06-2002, allowed the Application (MRTU) No.5/2000 filed by the Respondent No.1-Union and permitted it to function as a recognized union with the Petitioner within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court.
Issues
Whether the 'appropriate Government' in relation to the Petitioner (National Institute of Industrial Engineering) is the Central Government or the State Government under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether the application of the Respondent No.1-Union under Section 11 of the MRTU & PULP Act was maintainable.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that NITIE is an industry carried on under the authority of the Central Government as it is fully funded and controlled by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, and therefore the appropriate Government is the Central Government.
Respondent-Union argued that NITIE is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is an autonomous body; the Central Government does not exercise deep and pervasive control; hence the appropriate Government is the State Government.
Ratio Decidendi
The term 'industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government' in Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 requires that the Central Government must have deep and pervasive control over the industry, not merely regulatory or funding control. NITIE, being a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and an autonomous body, is not an industry carried on under the authority of the Central Government. Therefore, the appropriate Government is the State Government.
Judgment Excerpts
By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has impugned the judgment and order dated 28-06-2002 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai.
The principal issue involved in the Petition is whether the `appropriate Government' as defined under section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in relation to an industrial dispute concerning the Petitioner is the Central Government or the State Government.
Procedural History
The Respondent No.1-Union filed Application (MRTU) No.5/2000 before the Industrial Court, Mumbai for registration as a recognized union under Section 11 of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Industrial Court allowed the application on 28-06-2002. The Petitioner challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No. 2388 of 2002 before the Bombay High Court. The High Court reserved judgment on 15 January 2019 and pronounced it on 04 February 2019, dismissing the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(a)
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Section 11
- Constitution of India: Article 226
