Case Note & Summary
The judgment dealt with two writ petitions filed by Vyapari Sahakari Bank Maryadit, a co-operative society, under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging two orders passed by the Industrial Court, Solapur. The first impugned order dated 15 January 1996 rejected the Bank's contention that a strike resorted to by its employees was illegal. The second order dated 17 January 1996 held that the Bank had committed an unfair labour practice under Item 8 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 by recruiting workers during the strike period. The employees had submitted a Charter of Demands on 4 March 1989 and served a strike notice under Section 24 of the MRTU & PULP Act on 6 April 1989. No response having been received, the strike commenced. During the strike, the Bank hired some workers, prompting the employees to file Complaint (ULP) No. 45/89 on 24 April 1989. Simultaneously, the Bank filed BIR Application No. 1 of 1989 before the Labour Court, Solapur, seeking a declaration that the strike was illegal under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, as no notice under Section 42(2) thereof had been given. The Labour Court dismissed the application on 5 August 1989, finding that the strike was not illegal since the MRTU & PULP Act formalities were met. The Bank's revision to the Industrial Court failed, the Court holding that the Bank ought to have sought a declaration of illegality under Section 25 of the MRTU & PULP Act rather than invoking the BIR Act. The Industrial Court concurrently held in the ULP complaint that the strike being legal, the recruitment constituted an unfair labour practice. Before the High Court, the Bank contended that both the BIR Act and the MRTU & PULP Act applied and compliance with the former was mandatory, relying on Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. vs. Balmer Lawrie Employees' Union (1989 L.I.C. 88) for the proposition that there is no repugnancy between the statutes. The employees argued that in the absence of a representative union under the BIR Act, they were incapable of giving notice under Section 42(2), and that the MRTU & PULP Act was a complete code obviating the need for such notice, citing Nagpur District Central Co-Op. Bank vs. State of Maharashtra (1987 II CLR 283). The available text does not contain the High Court's reasoning or final decision; it ends mid-argument. Therefore, the outcome of the writ petitions remains unknown from the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Strike Legality - Compliance with Both BIR Act and MRTU & PULP Act - Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, Sections 42(2), 97(1)(b); Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Section 24 - The employer contended that the strike was illegal for not serving a notice of change under Section 42(2) BIR Act, even though a strike notice under Section 24 MRTU & PULP Act was given. The employees argued that in the absence of a representative union under the BIR Act, they could not comply, and the MRTU & PULP Act being a complete code dispensed with the need for such notice. The Industrial Court held that the notice under MRTU & PULP Act was sufficient and the employer ought to have sought a declaration of illegality under Section 25 of the MRTU & PULP Act. The High Court considered these rival contentions but the final determination is not included in the provided excerpt (Paras 14-18, 21-23).
B) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Recruitment during Strike - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Item 8 of Schedule IV - The Industrial Court found that by recruiting employees during the pendency of the strike which was held legal, the employer Bank committed unfair labour practice under Item 8 of Schedule IV and directed cessation and cost of Rs.5,000. This order was challenged in the writ petition but the High Court's ruling on this point is not available in the truncated judgment (Paras 7-8, 25).
C) Industrial Disputes - Jurisdiction - Forum for Declaring Strike Illegal - Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, Sections 78, 79, 80A; Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Section 25 - The Labour Court rejected the employer's BIR Application seeking a declaration that the strike was illegal, holding that provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act were followed. The Industrial Court in revision affirmed, stating the employer should have moved under Section 25 of the MRTU & PULP Act. The writ petition challenged this view, raising a jurisdictional question. The High Court's final view is not provided in the available text (Paras 9-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether employees covered under both the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 must comply with the notice requirements of Section 42(2) of the BIR Act in addition to Section 24 of the MRTU & PULP Act before resorting to a strike, and whether recruitment of employees during such strike amounts to unfair labour practice under Item 8 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.
Final Decision
Not mentioned (the provided judgment text is incomplete and does not contain the final holding or disposal of the writ petitions).
Law Points
- Strike notice under Section 24 MRTU & PULP Act
- requirement of notice under Section 42(2) BIR Act
- concurrent applicability of both statutes
- unfair labour practice under Item 8 Schedule IV MRTU & PULP Act
- declaration of illegality of strike under Section 25 MRTU & PULP Act
- jurisdiction of Labour Court and Industrial Court.
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (06) 71
Writ Petition No. 3170 of 1996 and Writ Petition No. 3173 of 1996
Mr. P.K.Rele with Mr. Piyush Shah for Petitioner; Mr. Neel Helekar with Mr. S.M. Dharap for Respondents
Vyapari Sahakari Bank Maryadit
Ambure P.A., Mangrule J.S., Bet P.G., Chandak R.S., Dayama L.S., Rajgopal Malmukund Chandak, Rajaram Apparao Dasgunde, Laxminarayan Shrikisan Dayama, Shankar Rachappa Motagi, Balkrishna Shantaram Bhasme, Jagannath Sharnappa Mangrule, Ratilal Kisanlal Bhandari, Nandkishor Jagannath Jaju, Ramkrishna Manikchand Pardeshi, Rajgopal Maganlal Mantri, Prashant Govind Bet, Prashantkumar Anant Ambure, Shivaji Kallapa Lohar, P.S.Rajmane, R.E. Miniyar, R.U. Ingule and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging orders of the Industrial Court regarding the legality of a strike by bank employees and the commission of unfair labour practice by the employer bank.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner Bank sought to have the strike declared illegal under the BIR Act and consequently set aside the finding of unfair labour practice and the direction to cease and desist, as well as the cost award.
Filing Reason
The Industrial Court held that the strike was legal and that the Bank committed unfair labour practice by recruiting employees during the strike, which the Bank considered erroneous and contrary to law.
Previous Decisions
The Labour Court, Solapur, in BIR Application No. 1 of 1989 dated 5 August 1989, rejected the Bank's application and held that the strike was not illegal as MRTU & PULP Act provisions were followed. The Industrial Court, in revision, by order dated 15 January 1996, upheld that view and added that the Bank should have sought a declaration under Section 25 of the MRTU & PULP Act. Simultaneously, the Industrial Court by order dated 17 January 1996 in Complaint (ULP) No. 45/89 found the Bank guilty of unfair labour practice under Item 8 of Schedule IV MRTU & PULP Act and directed cessation and payment of Rs.5,000 cost.
Issues
Whether a strike notice under Section 24 of the MRTU & PULP Act is sufficient to render the strike legal when the industry is also governed by the BIR Act, or whether a separate notice under Section 42(2) of the BIR Act is additionally required.
Whether the recruitment of employees by the employer during the strike period constitutes an unfair labour practice under Item 8 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner Bank argued that since both the BIR Act and MRTU & PULP Act apply, the employees were obligated to comply with Section 42(2) BIR Act and failure to do so rendered the strike illegal under Section 97(1)(b) BIR Act. The existence or absence of a representative union was irrelevant as Section 28 of the BIR Act provides for election of representatives. There is no repugnancy between the two Acts and both must be complied with; reliance was placed on Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. v. Balmer Lawrie Employees' Union (1989 L.I.C. 88).
Respondents-employees contended that there was no representative or qualified union under the BIR Act, hence they were incapacitated to give notice under Section 42(2). The MRTU & PULP Act is a complete code and compliance with its provisions alone was sufficient. The Division Bench in Nagpur District Central Co-Op. Bank v. State of Maharashtra (1987 II CLR 283) held that approach notice under Section 42(2) BIR Act was not necessary before filing a complaint under Section 28 MRTU & PULP Act. They further submitted that the Industrial Court's view was reasonable and the writ petitions should be dismissed.
Judgment Excerpts
The Industrial Court vide its judgment and order dated 15.1.1989 was pleased to hold that there was no need for serving approach notice under Section 42 (2) of the BIR Act on employer as it was open for the employees to opt to serve notice of strike under Section 24 of the MRTU & PULP Act.
The Labour Court was pleased to reject the said application vide its order dated 5.8.1989 holding that the strike resorted to by the employees of the Bank was not illegal since provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act were followed.
Procedural History
4.3.1989: Employees submit Charter of Demands. 6.4.1989: Strike notice under Section 24 MRTU & PULP Act served. Strike commences after expiry of notice period. During strike, Bank recruits some employees. 24.4.1989: Employees file Complaint (ULP) No. 45/89 under Section 28 MRTU & PULP Act before Industrial Court, Solapur, alleging unfair labour practice. 28.4.1989: Bank files BIR Application No. 1/1989 before Labour Court, Solapur, under Sections 78, 79, 80A and 97 BIR Act seeking declaration that strike is illegal. 5.8.1989: Labour Court rejects BIR Application, holding strike not illegal. Bank files revision before Industrial Court. 15.1.1996: Industrial Court dismisses revision, holding no need for notice under Section 42(2) BIR Act and that Bank should have sought declaration under Section 25 MRTU & PULP Act. 17.1.1996: Industrial Court allows ULP Complaint, finding Bank committed unfair labour practice under Item 8 Schedule IV MRTU & PULP Act, directing cease and desist and Rs.5,000 cost. 1996: Bank files Writ Petitions No. 3170 and 3173 of 1996 in Bombay High Court under Article 226. 7.6.2006: High Court hears the petitions; judgment text provided is truncated and final outcome not available.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Section 24, Section 25, Section 28, Item 8 of Schedule IV
- Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946: Section 42(2), Section 78, Section 79, Section 80A, Section 97(1)(b), Section 28, Section 30, Section 33, Section 33A
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960:
