Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Century Enka Ltd., challenged the judgment and order dated 15-2-2012 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Pune, which allowed the revision applications filed by the respondents, Kishan Sambhaji Biradra and Sunil Sadhuram Patil, and set aside the Labour Court's order dated 22-2-2011 dismissing their complaints. The respondents were employees of the petitioner company and were dismissed from service after a domestic inquiry. They filed complaints under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, alleging unfair labour practices. The Labour Court initially held the inquiry to be fair and proper. Subsequently, the respondents filed an application dated 19-3-2009 seeking production of documents relating to inquiry proceedings against six other workmen who were similarly charged. The Labour Court rejected this application on 30-10-2009 on the ground that the documents were not relevant. The respondents filed a revision before the Industrial Court, which allowed the revision and set aside the Labour Court's order, also setting aside the earlier judgment dismissing the complaints. The High Court examined the issue of whether the Industrial Court was justified in interfering with the Labour Court's interlocutory order. The High Court noted that the Industrial Court did not consider the relevance of the documents sought. The documents pertained to other workmen and were not relevant to the respondents' case. The High Court held that the Industrial Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by interfering with an order that was not perverse or illegal. The High Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the Industrial Court's order, and restored the Labour Court's order dated 30-10-2009 rejecting the application for production of documents. The High Court also restored the complaints to the file of the Labour Court for further proceedings.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Production of Documents - Relevance - The Labour Court rejected the application for production of documents relating to inquiry proceedings of other workmen on the ground of irrelevance. The Industrial Court in revision set aside that order. The High Court held that the Industrial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with an interlocutory order without considering the relevance of the documents. The documents pertaining to other workmen were not relevant to the case of the respondents. (Paras 2-6) B) Industrial Law - Revisional Jurisdiction - Interlocutory Orders - The Industrial Court's revisional power under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 does not permit interference with every interlocutory order. The Industrial Court must consider whether the order suffers from any legal infirmity or perversity. In this case, the Industrial Court failed to do so and erroneously allowed the revision. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in allowing the revision applications and setting aside the Labour Court's order rejecting the application for production of documents relating to inquiry proceedings of other workmen, and whether the documents sought were relevant for adjudication of the complaints.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the judgment and order dated 15-2-2012 passed by the Industrial Court, and restored the order dated 30-10-2009 passed by the Labour Court rejecting the application for production of documents. The complaints are restored to the file of the Labour Court for further proceedings.
Law Points
- Industrial Court's revisional jurisdiction
- production of documents in unfair labour practice complaints
- relevance of inquiry proceedings of other workmen
- scope of interference with interlocutory orders
