Case Note & Summary
The judgment involves three writ petitions filed by the Superintending Horticulture Officer, Deputy Director of Horticulture, and Horticultural Nursery Officer (the Petitioners) against orders of the Industrial Court, Nasik, in complaints filed by three workmen (the Respondents) under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The workmen alleged that they were employed on a temporary basis for years in cultivation and agricultural works and had completed more than 240 days of service from 1982 onwards. The Petitioners contended that their establishment was not an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the Industrial Court should have decided this preliminary issue before proceeding on merits. The Industrial Court, however, ignored this plea and disposed of the complaints on merits. The High Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the petitions, holding that the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to decide the complaints and that the Petitioners' contention regarding the definition of 'industry' was without merit. The Court did not elaborate further on the merits of the case, as the petitions were dismissed at the admission stage itself.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Definition of Industry - Section 2(j) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Jurisdiction of Industrial Court - The Petitioners contended that their establishment is not an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the Industrial Court should have decided this preliminary issue before proceeding on merits. The Court held that the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to decide the complaints and that the Petitioners' contention was without merit. (Paras 2-3)
B) Unfair Labour Practice - Temporary Employment - Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The workmen alleged that they were employed on a temporary basis for years and had put in more than 240 days of service from 1982 onwards, and that the Petitioners had engaged in unfair labour practices. The Industrial Court disposed of the complaints on merits. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the establishment of the Petitioners (Horticulture Department) is an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether the Industrial Court erred in not deciding this preliminary issue before proceeding on merits.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed all three writ petitions, holding that the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to decide the complaints and that the Petitioners' contention regarding the definition of 'industry' was without merit.
Law Points
- Definition of industry under Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Unfair labour practices under Items 5
- 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act
- 1971
- Jurisdiction of Industrial Court to decide preliminary issue of maintainability
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (03) 213
Writ Petition No.1656 of 1997, Writ Petition No.1657 of 1997, Writ Petition No.1658 of 1997
Mr. S.K. Chinchalikar, Assistant Government Pleader for the Petitioners; Mr. M.S. Karnit for the Respondents
The Superintending Horticulture Officer, Nasik Division, Nasik; The Deputy Director of Horticulture, Nasik; The Horticultural Nursery Officer, Central Nursery, Chandwad
Tarabai Murlidhar Jadhav (in WP 1656/1997); Sumanbai Sampatrao Kumbarde (in WP 1657/1997); Smt. Janakabai Waman Bachhav (in WP 1658/1997)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging orders of the Industrial Court, Nasik, in complaints filed under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
Remedy Sought
The Petitioners sought to quash the Industrial Court orders on the ground that the establishment was not an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the Industrial Court should have decided this preliminary issue before proceeding on merits.
Filing Reason
The Petitioners contended that the Industrial Court ignored their plea that the establishment is not an 'industry' and disposed of the complaints on merits.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court, Nasik, passed orders in the complaints without deciding the preliminary issue of whether the establishment is an 'industry'.
Issues
Whether the establishment of the Petitioners is an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether the Industrial Court erred in not deciding the preliminary issue of maintainability before proceeding on merits.
Submissions/Arguments
The Petitioners argued that their establishment is not an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore the Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction.
The Respondents (workmen) contended that they were employed for years on a temporary basis and had put in more than 240 days of service, and that the Petitioners had engaged in unfair labour practices.
Ratio Decidendi
The Industrial Court has jurisdiction to decide complaints under the MRTU and PULP Act, and the preliminary objection that the establishment is not an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does not oust its jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
These Petitions have been heard together as the question involved in all the three Writ Petitions is the same.
The orders impugned in each of these Petitions has been passed by the Industrial Court, Nasik in Complaints filed under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
The Industrial Court, ignoring the pleadings of the Petitioners that the establishment is not an 'industry' as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has disposed of the Complaints on merits.
Procedural History
The workmen filed complaints under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act before the Industrial Court, Nasik. The Petitioners raised a preliminary objection that the establishment is not an 'industry'. The Industrial Court ignored this plea and disposed of the complaints on merits. The Petitioners then filed the present writ petitions before the Bombay High Court challenging those orders.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Schedule IV, Items 5, 6, 9
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(j)
