Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Industrial Court's Lack of Jurisdiction in Unfair Labour Practice Complaint Involving Horse Training Employees. The Industrial Court correctly held that the ULP Act does not apply to the horse racing industry as it is not an 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

High Court: Bombay High Court
  • 69
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, a registered trade union, filed a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (ULP Act) before the Industrial Court, Mumbai, alleging unfair labour practices by the respondents. The respondents were Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. (respondent no.1), a public limited company conducting horse races; respondent no.2, a public limited company of horse owners; and respondent no.3, a public limited company of horse trainers. The complaint alleged that workmen employed by respondent no.3 in training horses were employees of respondent nos.1 and 2, and that the respondents had engaged in unfair labour practices under Item 6 of Schedule II and Item 9 of Schedule IV of the ULP Act. The respondents filed separate written statements: respondent nos.1 and 2 denied that the employees of respondent no.3 were their employees and denied the allegations; respondent no.3 admitted the employees were its own but denied unfair labour practices. In March 2001, respondent no.1 moved an application citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Vividh Kamgar Sabha v. Kalyani Steels Ltd., 2001 I CLR 532, arguing that the Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction because the ULP Act applies only to 'industries' as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act), and horse racing is not an 'industry'. The Industrial Court allowed the application and dismissed the complaint for want of jurisdiction. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court, after hearing arguments, upheld the Industrial Court's decision. The court held that the ULP Act's jurisdiction is co-extensive with the ID Act's definition of 'industry', and following the Supreme Court's ruling in Vividh Kamgar Sabha, horse racing is not an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the ID Act. Therefore, the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The writ petition was dismissed.

Headnote

A) Industrial Law - Jurisdiction - Unfair Labour Practice - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Sections 5, 7, Schedule II Item 6, Schedule IV Item 9 - The Industrial Court dismissed a complaint for want of jurisdiction, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Vividh Kamgar Sabha v. Kalyani Steels Ltd. which held that the ULP Act applies only to 'industries' as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The High Court upheld this view, noting that the horse racing industry is not an 'industry' under the ID Act, and therefore the Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction. (Paras 1-5)

B) Industrial Law - Definition of Industry - Horse Racing - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(j) - The court considered whether horse racing constitutes an 'industry' under the ID Act. Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Vividh Kamgar Sabha, the court held that horse racing is not an 'industry' as it is a recreational activity and not a systematic activity for production or distribution of goods or services. (Paras 3-5)

C) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Complaint - Maintainability - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The petitioner's complaint under the ULP Act was dismissed as not maintainable because the respondent's establishment was not an 'industry' under the ID Act. The High Court affirmed that the ULP Act's jurisdiction is co-extensive with the ID Act's definition of 'industry'. (Paras 1-5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, in respect of employees engaged in horse training activities, given that the horse racing industry may not be an 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under the ULP Act.

Law Points

  • Jurisdiction of Industrial Court under ULP Act
  • Definition of 'industry' under Industrial Disputes Act
  • Applicability of ULP Act to horse racing
  • Effect of Supreme Court judgment in Vividh Kamgar Sabha v. Kalyani Steels Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (08) 176

WRIT PETITION NO. 983 of 2003

2005-08-03

D.G. Karnik, J.

Mr. N.M. Ganguli for the petitioner, Mr. J.P. Cama for the respondent no.1, Mr. K.P. Anilkumar for the respondent no.3 absent

Maharashtra General Kamgar Union

Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging the order of the Industrial Court dismissing a complaint under the ULP Act for want of jurisdiction.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner sought to set aside the Industrial Court's order and to have the complaint heard on merits.

Filing Reason

The petitioner alleged unfair labour practices by the respondents in respect of workmen employed in horse training activities.

Previous Decisions

The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint ULP no.1549 of 1991 on 30th January 2003, holding that it lacked jurisdiction in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Vividh Kamgar Sabha v. Kalyani Steels Ltd.

Issues

Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under the ULP Act in respect of employees engaged in horse training activities. Whether horse racing constitutes an 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner argued that the Industrial Court had jurisdiction and that the complaint should be heard on merits. The respondent no.1 argued that in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Vividh Kamgar Sabha v. Kalyani Steels Ltd., the ULP Act applies only to 'industries' as defined under the ID Act, and horse racing is not an 'industry'.

Ratio Decidendi

The ULP Act's jurisdiction is co-extensive with the definition of 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Vividh Kamgar Sabha v. Kalyani Steels Ltd., horse racing is not an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the ID Act, and therefore the Industrial Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain complaints under the ULP Act in respect of employees engaged in horse racing activities.

Judgment Excerpts

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgement and order dated 30th January 2003 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai dismissing the complaint ULP no.1549 of 1991 filed under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act (for short 'the ULP Act') for want of jurisdiction. In March 2001 the respondent no.1 moved an application stating that in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Vividh Kamgar Sabha Vs. Kalyani Steels Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2001 I CLR 532, the Industrial Court exercising the powers under the ULP Act had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a complaint ULP no.1549 of 1991 before the Industrial Court, Mumbai, under the ULP Act. In March 2001, respondent no.1 moved an application challenging jurisdiction. The Industrial Court allowed the application and dismissed the complaint on 30th January 2003. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 3rd August 2005.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Schedule II Item 6, Schedule IV Item 9
  • Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(j)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal Due to Petitioner's Arrest and Detention. Held that sufficient cause for delay is established when the appellant was in custody and unable to file appeal within limitation period.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Industrial Court's Lack of Jurisdiction in Unfair Labour Practice Complaint Involving Horse Training Employees. The Industrial Court correctly held that the ULP Act does not apply to the horse racing i...