Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Bapu Parwati Urmude, was employed with the respondent, Premier Industries, from 1981. On 21st October 2002, the respondent alleged that the petitioner abused a partner, and from 22nd October 2002, the petitioner was prevented from entering the premises, which he claimed amounted to oral refusal of work. A charge-sheet was issued on 30th December 2002. The petitioner contended that the domestic enquiry was not completed within 90 days as required under Standing Order 25 of the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and that he was not paid wages from 22nd October 2002 until his dismissal on 4th April 2005. He filed Complaint (ULP) No. 161 of 2003 before the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, alleging unfair labour practices under Items 5, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint as premature, observing that the petitioner should have waited for the management to complete the enquiry and take action. The High Court upheld this decision, noting that the complaint was filed during the pendency of the domestic enquiry and before any final order was passed, and thus was premature. The court also noted that the petitioner had been provided with a defence representative and that the dismissal was challenged separately in Reference (IDA) No. 21 of 2012. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Premature Complaint - Complaint filed before completion of domestic enquiry is premature and amounts to misuse of process - Held that the petitioner ought to have waited for the management to take action after the enquiry, and filing a complaint during the pendency of enquiry restricts the management's right to proceed in accordance with law (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in dismissing the complaint as premature when the domestic enquiry was not completed within 90 days and the petitioner was not paid wages.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Premature filing of complaint
- Unfair labour practice
- Completion of domestic enquiry within 90 days
- Model Standing Orders
- Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act
- 1946
- MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (11) 5
WRIT PETITION NO. 4568 OF 2011
Shri P. V. Barde for the Petitioner, Shri A.P. Bhandhari for the Respondent
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Industrial Court dismissing the petitioner's complaint alleging unfair labour practice.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to set aside the Industrial Court's order and to declare that the respondent had engaged in unfair labour practices.
Filing Reason
The petitioner alleged that he was prevented from entering the workplace from 22nd October 2002, and that the domestic enquiry was not completed within 90 days, and he was not paid wages.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, dismissed Complaint (ULP) No. 161 of 2003 as premature.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court was correct in dismissing the complaint as premature.
Whether the non-completion of the domestic enquiry within 90 days renders the enquiry bad in law.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the enquiry was not completed within 90 days as required by Standing Order 25, and that he was not paid wages from 22nd October 2002.
Respondent argued that the complaint was premature as the enquiry was still pending and no final order had been passed.
Ratio Decidendi
A complaint alleging unfair labour practice filed during the pendency of a domestic enquiry, before any final order is passed, is premature and amounts to misuse of the process of law. The employee ought to wait for the management to complete the enquiry and take action before approaching the forum.
Judgment Excerpts
When the complainant was issued with show cause notice and his comments were called upon by providing him copy of the findings there was no reason for the complainant to file such a complaint and allege unfair labour practice.
In fact, complainant ought to have waited to action on the part of the Respondent thereafter only ought to have approached the appropriate forum but by not doing so the complainant pre-maturely filed the present complaint and in my opinion the act of the complainant of filing complaint is nothing but using the process of law at premature stage and with a view to restrict management from taking action in accordance with law.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No. 161 of 2003 before the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, which was dismissed as premature. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act): Schedule IV, Items 5, 9, 10
- Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946: Standing Order 25
