Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Siemens Limited, challenged an order of the Industrial Court dated 29th March 2005 in Complaint (ULP) No.586 of 1995. The complaint was filed by the All India Siemens Employees Union alleging unfair labour practices under Items 1(a), (b), 2(b), 4 of Schedule II and Items 5, 9, 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The grievance was that the petitioner was discussing charter of demands, bonus, and service conditions only with the Siemens Workers Union and not with the complainant union. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint under most items but declared an unfair labour practice under Item 2(b) of Schedule II and directed the petitioner to give equal treatment to both unions. Subsequently, the petitioner entered into settlements with both unions under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the years 2000 and 2002. The High Court held that in view of these settlements, no purpose would be served by deciding the legality of the impugned order, and dismissed the petition as infructuous.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Subsequent Settlements - The petition challenging an order declaring unfair labour practice under Item 2(b) of Schedule II of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 was rendered infructuous as the employer had entered into settlements under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with both unions in 2000 and 2002, thereby resolving the underlying dispute. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petition challenging the Industrial Court's order on unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 survives after subsequent settlements between the parties
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, holding that no purpose would be served by deciding the legality of the impugned order in view of the subsequent settlements signed under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Law Points
- Subsequent settlements under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 render the challenge to an order on unfair labour practice infructuous
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (03) 183
WRIT PETITION NO.378 OF 1997
Mr. P.K. Rele with Mr. P.N. Anaokar, Mr. V.N. Tayade and Mr. Piyush Shah i/b. Suresh Pakale for the Petitioner. None present for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.3 formal party.
All India Siemens Employees Union, Siemens Workers Union, Shri A.L. Alaspurkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an order of the Industrial Court declaring an unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the Industrial Court's order directing equal treatment to both unions.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the Industrial Court's finding of unfair labour practice under Item 2(b) of Schedule II of the Act.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint under Items 1(a), (b), 4 of Schedule II and Items 5, 9, 10 of Schedule IV, but declared an unfair labour practice under Item 2(b) of Schedule II and directed equal treatment.
Issues
Whether the petition challenging the Industrial Court's order on unfair labour practice survives after subsequent settlements between the employer and the unions.
Submissions/Arguments
Not mentioned in the judgment text.
Ratio Decidendi
When subsequent settlements under the Industrial Disputes Act resolve the underlying dispute, a challenge to an order on unfair labour practice becomes infructuous and need not be adjudicated.
Judgment Excerpts
In such circumstances, no purpose would be served by deciding whether the impugned order is legal and valid.
Procedural History
Complaint (ULP) No.586 of 1995 was filed by the All India Siemens Employees Union before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint under most items but declared an unfair labour practice under Item 2(b) of Schedule II and directed equal treatment. The petitioner challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No.378 of 1997 before the Bombay High Court. Subsequently, settlements were signed between the petitioner and both unions in 2000 and 2002.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Schedule II Items 1(a), (b), 2(b), 4; Schedule IV Items 5, 9, 10
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(p), Section 18(1)
