Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gulab Namdeo Bhure, was employed with the Zilla Parishad & Govt. Employees Cooperative Society Ltd., Bhandara. He initially joined as a Junior Clerk and was promoted to Branch Manager on 01.12.2013. On 04.07.2017, the respondent-Society passed an order reverting him to the post of Senior Clerk, alleging that he was not entitled to the promotion. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act), invoking Items 5, 6, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV. The respondents raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court, arguing that the petitioner was not a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 because he was a Branch Manager drawing a salary exceeding Rs. 10,000 per month. The Industrial Court initially passed an order on 03.10.2017 holding that it had jurisdiction. The respondents challenged this order in Writ Petition No. 7408 of 2017, which was allowed on 23.04.2018, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration. On 12.09.2018, the Industrial Court held the complaint not maintainable, relying on the petitioner's status as Branch Manager and salary above Rs. 10,000. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition. The core legal issue was whether the Industrial Court's jurisdiction should be determined based on the petitioner's status before the reversion order (as Branch Manager) or after reversion (as Senior Clerk). The High Court, per Justice A.S. Chandurkar, held that the status prior to the impugned order of reversion must be considered. The Court reasoned that the petitioner was aggrieved by the reversion and sought to challenge it; therefore, his status before the reversion was relevant. If he was a 'workman' before reversion, the Industrial Court would have jurisdiction. The Court set aside the Industrial Court's order dated 12.09.2018 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration on the question of jurisdiction, directing the Industrial Court to determine whether the petitioner was a 'workman' prior to the reversion order. The writ petition was allowed in these terms.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Jurisdiction of Industrial Court - Determination of 'workman' status - The question is whether the Industrial Court's jurisdiction under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) should be determined based on the employee's status before the impugned order of reversion or after reversion. The Court held that the status prior to the order of reversion must be considered, as the employee is aggrieved by the reversion and seeks to challenge it. If the employee was a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before reversion, the Industrial Court has jurisdiction. (Paras 1, 5-6) B) Industrial Law - Reversion - Maintainability of complaint - The petitioner, who was promoted to Branch Manager and then reverted to Senior Clerk, filed a complaint under Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Industrial Court held the complaint not maintainable because the petitioner was a Branch Manager drawing salary above Rs. 10,000. The High Court set aside this order, holding that the Industrial Court must consider the petitioner's status before reversion. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court under the MRTU & PULP Act is to be determined by considering the status of the petitioner prior to the order of reversion or after being reverted to the post of Senior Clerk?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Industrial Court's order dated 12.09.2018, and remitted the matter to the Industrial Court for fresh consideration on the question of jurisdiction, directing that the status of the petitioner prior to the order of reversion dated 04.07.2017 be taken into consideration.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Industrial Court under MRTU & PULP Act determined by status of employee prior to impugned order of reversion
- not after reversion
- employee aggrieved by reversion retains right to challenge as workman if he was workman before reversion
