Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Mahindra and Mahindra Employees' Union and its members, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 29.4.2006 passed by the Labour Officer (respondent no.4) under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The Labour Officer had rejected a requisition dated 4.4.2006 signed by 384 employees for recalling the elected representatives (respondent nos. 6 to 8) on the ground that the reasons given in the requisition were not sufficient. The petitioners contended that the Labour Officer had no jurisdiction to examine the sufficiency of reasons and that the order was arbitrary. The respondents, including the company and the elected representatives, supported the order. The High Court, after hearing all parties, held that the Labour Officer's satisfaction under Section 27(2) of the Act is quasi-judicial and the order was based on the material on record. The court found no perversity or unreasonableness in the order and dismissed the petition, upholding the Labour Officer's decision.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Recall of Elected Representatives - Section 27(2) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 - Requisition for recall must contain specific reasons - The Labour Officer rejected the requisition moved by 384 employees for recalling elected representatives on the ground that the reasons given were not sufficient - The High Court held that the Labour Officer's satisfaction under Section 27(2) is quasi-judicial and the order was based on material on record - The petition was dismissed as no interference was warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Officer was justified in rejecting the requisition for recall of elected representatives on the ground that the reasons given in the requisition were not sufficient.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Labour Officer dated 29.4.2006.
Law Points
- Recall of elected representatives under Bombay Industrial Relations Act
- 1946
- Section 27(2) requires specific reasons
- Labour Officer's satisfaction is quasi-judicial
- High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited to examining procedural correctness and reasonableness of order.
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (12) 103
Writ Petition No. 2662 of 2006
S.D. Thakur for petitioners, Y.B. Mandpe (AGP) for respondent nos. 1-4, R.B. Puranik for respondent no.5, A.M. Gordey and M.V. Mohokar for respondent nos. 6-8
Mahindra and Mahindra Employees' Union and others
The Commissioner of Labour and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Labour Officer rejecting a requisition for recall of elected representatives.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the order dated 29.4.2006 passed by the Labour Officer and direction to consider the requisition for recall.
Filing Reason
The Labour Officer rejected the requisition for recall on the ground that the reasons given were not sufficient.
Previous Decisions
The Labour Officer passed the order dated 29.4.2006 rejecting the requisition.
Issues
Whether the Labour Officer was justified in rejecting the requisition for recall of elected representatives on the ground that the reasons given in the requisition were not sufficient.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the Labour Officer had no jurisdiction to examine the sufficiency of reasons and the order was arbitrary.
Respondents supported the order, contending that the Labour Officer's satisfaction under Section 27(2) is quasi-judicial and the order was based on material on record.
Ratio Decidendi
The Labour Officer's satisfaction under Section 27(2) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 is quasi-judicial and the order rejecting the requisition for recall was based on the material on record. No interference under Article 226 is warranted as the order is not perverse or unreasonable.
Judgment Excerpts
The petition is directed against the order dated 29.4.2006 passed by the Labour Officer whereby requisition dated 4.4.2006 moved by 384 employees for recalling the elected representatives came to be rejected on the ground that the reasons given in the requisition were not sufficient.
We have perused the impugned order. The Labour Officer has recorded a finding that the reasons given in the requisition are not sufficient. The satisfaction of the Labour Officer under Section 27(2) of the BIR Act is quasi-judicial and the order is based on the material on record.
In the circumstances, we do not find any perversity or unreasonableness in the impugned order so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the order dated 29.4.2006 of the Labour Officer. The petition was heard and finally disposed of on 7.12.2006.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946: Section 27(2)
- Constitution of India: Article 226
