Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, MESCO Airlines Limited, an air transport company holding a license for non-scheduled air transport service under the Aircraft Rules, 1937, challenged an order dated 6th September 2005 passed by the Labour Court, Mumbai, dismissing its preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction. The respondent, Abhay Maheshwari, a former aircraft maintenance engineer employed by the petitioner, had resigned with effect from 26th December 2001 and claimed that six months' salary was due to him. He filed an application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the State Labour Court for recovery of the salary. The petitioner objected, contending that the appropriate Government for its industry was the Central Government, and therefore only a Labour Court constituted by the Central Government had jurisdiction. The State Labour Court framed a preliminary issue and held that the appropriate Government was the State Government, thus it had jurisdiction. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this order. The High Court examined the definition of 'appropriate Government' under Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which provides that the Central Government is the appropriate Government in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, or by a railway company, or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government. The court noted that the petitioner's industry is not carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, nor is it a railway company. The court also considered whether the petitioner's industry falls within the definition of 'mine' or 'oilfield' under Section 2(j) of the Act, which includes any mine or oilfield as defined in the Mines Act, 1952 and the Oilfields (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948 respectively. The court found that the petitioner's air transport service does not constitute a mine or oilfield. The court further noted that the Central Government has not issued any notification under Section 2(a)(i) specifying non-scheduled air transport services as a controlled industry. Therefore, the appropriate Government is the State Government, and the State Labour Court has jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the State Labour Court.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Appropriate Government - Jurisdiction - Section 2(a)(i), Section 33(c)(2) - Non-scheduled air transport service - The petitioner, an air transport company holding a license for non-scheduled air transport service under the Aircraft Rules, 1937, challenged the jurisdiction of the State Labour Court to entertain an application for recovery of salary under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court held that the Central Government is the appropriate Government only for industries carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, or by a railway company, or by a mine, oilfield, or major port. Since the petitioner's industry is not a mine or oilfield as defined under the Act, and the Central Government has not issued any notification under Section 2(a)(i) covering non-scheduled air transport services, the State Government is the appropriate Government. The State Labour Court therefore has jurisdiction. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Government is the appropriate Government under Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of an air transport company operating a non-scheduled air transport service, and consequently whether the State Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Labour Court dated 6th September 2005, and held that the State Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Law Points
- Appropriate Government under Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Jurisdiction of State Labour Court
- Definition of 'mine' and 'oilfield' under Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act
- Aircraft Rules
- 1937
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (07) 79
Writ Petition No. 1178 of 2006
Mr. G.W. Mattos for the petitioner, Mr. P.O. Verghese for respondent
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Labour Court dismissing the petitioner's preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the order of the Labour Court dated 6th September 2005 and to hold that the State Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contended that the appropriate Government for its industry is the Central Government, and therefore the State Labour Court lacked jurisdiction.
Previous Decisions
The Labour Court, by order dated 6th September 2005, held that the appropriate Government is the State Government and that the State Labour Court has jurisdiction.
Issues
Whether the Central Government is the appropriate Government under Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of an air transport company operating a non-scheduled air transport service.
Whether the State Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that its industry is an air transport service, which is a controlled industry under the Central Government, and therefore the appropriate Government is the Central Government.
The respondent argued that the petitioner's industry is not a mine or oilfield, and the Central Government has not specified non-scheduled air transport services as a controlled industry, so the State Government is the appropriate Government.
Ratio Decidendi
The appropriate Government under Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is determined by whether the industry is carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, or by a railway company, or by a mine, oilfield, or major port. Since the petitioner's non-scheduled air transport service does not fall within these categories and the Central Government has not issued any notification specifying it as a controlled industry, the State Government is the appropriate Government.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition, petitioner challenges the judgement and order dated 6th September 2005 passed by the Labour Court Mumbai dismissing the petitioners’ preliminary objection about its jurisdiction to entertain and try the dispute.
The petitioner is an Air Transport Company possessing licence to operate 'non-scheduled air transport service' granted by the Director General of Civil Aviation under the Aircraft Rules, 1937.
The respondent who was employed is an air craft maintenance engineer by the petitioner resigned his services with effect from 26th December 2001.
He therefore applied to the Labour Court constituted by the Government of Maharashtra (for short 'the State Labour Court') u/s.33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act') for recovery of the salary of the six months.
The petitioner objected to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and contended that in respect of the petitioner's industry, the appropriate Government was the Central Government and therefore, the only Labour Court constituted by Central Government had the jurisdiction to entertain and try the application.
By an order dated 6th September 2005, the State Labour Court came to the conclusion that appropriate Government in respect of the petitioner's industry was the State Government and therefore the State Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the application.
Procedural History
The respondent filed an application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, Mumbai for recovery of salary. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction. The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue and by order dated 6th September 2005 held that the State Labour Court has jurisdiction. The petitioner challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No. 1178 of 2006 before the High Court of Bombay.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(a)(i), Section 2(j), Section 33(c)(2)
- Aircraft Rules, 1937:
