Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, a former employee and an unrecognised trade union, filed complaints alleging that the respondent construction company had committed unfair labour practices under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The respondents, a public limited company engaged in civil construction, employed both permanent and temporary workers. The petitioners claimed that temporary workers, including petitioner no.1, had completed over 240 days of continuous service and were entitled to confirmation, but the respondents discriminated by confirming junior workers instead. The complaints cited items 5, 6, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV and item 6 of Schedule II of the Act. The recognised union for the establishment was Engineering Mazdoor Sabha, which did not support the complaints. The Industrial Court, after considering the evidence, held that the petitioners had failed to prove the alleged unfair labour practices and dismissed both complaints. The petitioners then approached the Bombay High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the Industrial Court's order as perverse. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint under item 6 of Schedule IV, arguing that Section 21(1) of the Act mandates that only a recognised trade union can represent employees in proceedings relating to items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV. Since the petitioners were represented by an unrecognised union and the recognised union had not sponsored them, the complaint was not maintainable. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the Industrial Court's findings were based on proper appreciation and were not perverse; they were possible findings and thus not open to interference under Article 226. The Court also upheld the preliminary objection, holding that Section 21(1) explicitly bars an employee or an unrecognised union from appearing or being represented in complaints concerning items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV except through the recognised union. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, affirming the Industrial Court's decision.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practices - Maintainability of Complaint - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Section 21(1) - The complaint alleged unfair labour practices under item 6 of Schedule IV, which involves employment of badlis, casuals or temporaries and continuing them for years with the object of depriving permanent status. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint inter alia for not being represented by the recognised union. Held, that under Section 21(1), no employee can appear, act or be represented in any proceeding relating to unfair labour practices specified in items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV except through the recognised union. Since the petitioners were an unrecognised union and the recognised union did not sponsor their cause, the complaint regarding item 6 was not maintainable. (Paras 11-12) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Interference with Findings of Fact - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The High Court examined the challenge to the Industrial Court's findings that the respondents had not committed unfair labour practices under items 5, 6, 9, 10 of Schedule IV and item 6 of Schedule II. Held, that findings of fact recorded by the Industrial Court are not open to challenge in writ jurisdiction unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. After re-appreciating the evidence, the High Court found that the findings were possible on the evidence and not so erroneous that no reasonable tribunal could reach them. Therefore, the petition was dismissed. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
1. Whether the Industrial Court's findings of fact were perverse or based on no evidence, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Whether a complaint alleging unfair labour practices under item 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 is maintainable when filed by an unrecognised union without the support of the recognised union, in view of Section 21(1) of the said Act.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order. The Court held that the complaint under item 6 of Schedule IV was not maintainable due to the bar under Section 21(1) of the ULP Act, and that the Industrial Court's other findings were not perverse. No costs.
Law Points
- Section 21 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act
- 1971 prohibits an employee from appearing or being represented in proceedings relating to unfair labour practices under items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV except through the recognised union
- findings of Industrial Court not perverse or based on no evidence cannot be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution
