Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Airworks (I) Engineering Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in aircraft and helicopter maintenance services. On 20th December 1997, a Charter of Demands was raised on behalf of its workmen by the Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh (BKKM). Conciliation failed, and the industrial dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. During the pendency of the reference, the union (BKKM) filed a purshis stating it had lost membership and requested the reference be disposed of as 'not pressed'. On 12th September 2001, the Tribunal disposed of the reference accordingly. On 11th October 2002, the first respondent, Maharashtra General Kamgar Mahasangh, filed a restoration application under Rule 26(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957, claiming that the workmen had been misled by the earlier union and that they had now joined the applicant union. The petitioner opposed the application. The Industrial Tribunal, by order dated 16th August 2003, restored the reference. The petitioner challenged this order under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court held that Rule 26(2) only applies when a proceeding is dismissed for default of appearance, not when it is disposed of on a purshis or on merits. The disposal as 'not pressed' was a conscious decision by the union representing the workmen, and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to restore it. The court quashed the Tribunal's order and allowed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Restoration of Reference - Jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal - Rule 26(2) of Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 - The Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to restore a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was disposed of as 'not pressed' at the instance of the union that originally prosecuted the proceedings. Rule 26(2) only permits restoration of a proceeding dismissed for default of appearance, not a disposal on merits or on a purshis. The Tribunal's order restoring the reference was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction under Rule 26(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 to restore a reference which was disposed of as 'not pressed' at the instance of the union that originally prosecuted the proceedings.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 16th August 2003 restoring the reference. The court held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction under Rule 26(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 to restore a reference disposed of as 'not pressed' on a purshis by the union.
Law Points
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Section 10
- Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules
- 1957
- Rule 26(2)
- restoration of reference
- jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (07) 9
WRIT PETITION NO.2490 OF 2003
Mr. A.D. Shetty for the Petitioner, Mr. N.M. Ganguli for the Respondents
Airworks (I) Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
Maharashtra General Kamgar Mahasangh & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order of the Industrial Tribunal restoring a reference which was disposed of as 'not pressed'.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Industrial Tribunal's order dated 16th August 2003 restoring the reference.
Filing Reason
The Industrial Tribunal restored a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which had been disposed of as 'not pressed' at the instance of the union that originally prosecuted the proceedings, allegedly without jurisdiction.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Tribunal by order dated 12th September 2001 disposed of the reference as 'not pressed' on a purshis filed by the union (BKKM). Subsequently, on 11th October 2002, the first respondent filed a restoration application under Rule 26(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957, which was allowed by the Tribunal on 16th August 2003.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction under Rule 26(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 to restore a reference which was disposed of as 'not pressed' at the instance of the union that originally prosecuted the proceedings.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to restore the reference as the disposal was not for default of appearance but on a purshis by the union, and Rule 26(2) only applies to dismissals for default.
The first respondent argued that the workmen were misled by the earlier union and that the restoration was necessary in the interest of justice.
Ratio Decidendi
Rule 26(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 only permits restoration of a proceeding dismissed for default of appearance. A disposal of a reference as 'not pressed' on a purshis by the union is a conscious decision and not a default. The Industrial Tribunal has no inherent power to restore such a reference. Therefore, the order of restoration was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
Judgment Excerpts
Rule 26(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 only permits restoration of a proceeding dismissed for default of appearance.
The disposal of the reference as 'not pressed' was a conscious decision by the union representing the workmen. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to restore it.
Procedural History
On 20th December 1997, a Charter of Demands was raised by BKKM. Conciliation failed, and the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. During the reference, BKKM filed a purshis stating loss of membership and requested disposal as 'not pressed'. On 12th September 2001, the Tribunal disposed of the reference accordingly. On 11th October 2002, the first respondent filed Restoration Application (IT) No.2 of 2002 under Rule 26(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957. The petitioner opposed. On 16th August 2003, the Tribunal allowed the restoration. The petitioner challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No.2490 of 2003 under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 10
- Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957: Rule 26(2)
- Constitution of India: Article 226
