Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dastgir Alam Mulla, a plant-operator employed by Mysore Petrochemicals Limited since 1992, was suspended on 29-11-2004 and a chargesheet was issued. A domestic inquiry was initiated on 25-12-2004 with Shri D.S. Nimbalkar, a practising advocate, appointed as the management's representative. The petitioner sought to appoint Shri Patki, Vice-President of the trade union of which he was a member, as his defence representative. The inquiry officer rejected this request on the ground that the Vice-President was not empowered to represent workmen under the union's constitution. The petitioner then filed Complaint (ULP) No.112 of 2005 before the Industrial Court, Thane, which was dismissed. He challenged that dismissal via Writ Petition No.3307 of 2005. Subsequently, he filed another application (Complaint (ULP) No.150 of 2006) seeking the same relief, which was also dismissed by the Industrial Court on 14-8-2006. The present writ petition challenges that order. The legal issue was whether the petitioner had a statutory right under Section 22(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) to be represented by an office bearer of his trade union. The petitioner argued that the Vice-President is an office bearer and the union constitution cannot override the statute. The respondents contended that the Vice-President was not authorised under the union's constitution to represent workmen. The court analysed Section 22(2)(c) and held that it confers a right on a workman to be represented by an office bearer of his trade union. The Vice-President is clearly an office bearer. The union constitution cannot restrict this statutory right. The court set aside the Industrial Court's order and directed the inquiry officer to permit the petitioner to be represented by Shri Patki, Vice-President of the union, or any other office bearer of the union.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Domestic Inquiry - Right to Representation - Section 22(2)(c) of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Workman sought representation by Vice-President of his trade union in domestic inquiry - Inquiry officer rejected on ground that Vice-President not empowered under union constitution - Industrial Court dismissed complaint - Held that Section 22(2)(c) confers a statutory right on workman to be represented by an office bearer of his trade union, and the Vice-President is an office bearer; the union constitution cannot restrict this statutory right (Paras 1-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a workman is entitled to be represented by an office bearer of a trade union of which he is a member, during a domestic inquiry, and whether the Vice-President of the union is an office bearer entitled to represent under Section 22(2)(c) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 14-8-2006 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane in Complaint (ULP) No.150 of 2006, and directed the inquiry officer to permit the petitioner to be represented by Shri Patki, Vice-President of the trade union, or any other office bearer of the union.
Law Points
- Right of workman to be represented by office bearer of trade union in domestic inquiry
- Section 22(2)(c) of MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Interpretation of trade union constitution
- Unfair labour practice
Case Details
Writ Petition No.6819 of 2006
S.M. Dharap with Neel Helekar for Petitioner; S.M. Oak with D.S. Nimbalkar for Respondent Nos.1,2,3,5; A.H. Palekar, Asst. Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.6,7
Mysore Petrochemicals Limited & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of Industrial Court dismissing complaint seeking representation by trade union office bearer in domestic inquiry.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought direction to respondents to allow him to be represented by an office bearer of the trade union during the domestic inquiry.
Filing Reason
Inquiry officer rejected petitioner's request to be represented by Vice-President of his trade union on ground that Vice-President not empowered under union constitution.
Previous Decisions
Industrial Court, Thane dismissed Complaint (ULP) No.150 of 2006 on 14-8-2006; earlier Complaint (ULP) No.112 of 2005 also dismissed and challenged in Writ Petition No.3307 of 2005.
Issues
Whether a workman has a statutory right under Section 22(2)(c) of MRTU & PULP Act to be represented by an office bearer of his trade union in a domestic inquiry.
Whether the Vice-President of a trade union is an office bearer entitled to represent a workman under Section 22(2)(c).
Whether the constitution of a trade union can restrict the statutory right of a workman to be represented by an office bearer.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that Section 22(2)(c) confers a right to be represented by an office bearer of the trade union; Vice-President is an office bearer; union constitution cannot override statute.
Respondents contended that Vice-President was not authorised under union constitution to represent workmen; thus inquiry officer's rejection was valid.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 22(2)(c) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 confers a statutory right on a workman to be represented by an office bearer of the trade union of which he is a member. The Vice-President of a trade union is an office bearer. The constitution of the trade union cannot restrict or take away this statutory right. Therefore, the inquiry officer's rejection of the petitioner's request was improper.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner challenges the order dated 14-8-2006 passed in Complaint (ULP) No.150 of 2006 by the Industrial Court, Thane whereby the application, filed by the petitioner seeking for direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to be represented by an office bearer of the Trade Union during the course of the inquiry against the petitioner, has been dismissed.
Section 22(2)(c) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 confers a right on a workman to be represented by an office bearer of his trade union. The Vice-President is an office bearer. The union constitution cannot restrict this statutory right.
Procedural History
Petitioner joined respondent-company on 16-11-1992. Suspended on 29-11-2004. Chargesheet issued and inquiry initiated on 25-12-2004. Petitioner sought representation by Vice-President of trade union; inquiry officer rejected on 14-8-2006. Petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No.112 of 2005 which was dismissed; challenged via Writ Petition No.3307 of 2005. Filed Complaint (ULP) No.150 of 2006 which was dismissed on 14-8-2006. Present writ petition filed on 22-11-2006.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Section 22(2)(c)
