Case Note & Summary
The judgment arises from two writ petitions filed in the Bombay High Court challenging an interim order passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The first petition was filed by the BEST Workers Union (petitioner in WP No. 1457 of 2015) against the BEST Undertaking and the BEST Jagrut Kamgar Sanghatana. The second petition was filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, through the General Manager of BEST (petitioner in WP No. 9332 of 2015), against the BEST Jagrut Kamgar Sanghatana. The background involves a dispute over the recognition of trade unions within the BEST Undertaking. The BEST Workers Union claimed that the employer was engaging in unfair labour practices by not recognizing it as the sole bargaining agent and by dealing with other unions. The Union filed a complaint before the Industrial Court alleging unfair labour practices under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. During the pendency of the complaint, the Union filed an application for interim relief under Section 30(2) of the Act, seeking a direction to the employer to recognize it as the sole bargaining agent and to cease dealing with other unions. The Industrial Court, by its order dated 19th December 2025, allowed the interim application and directed the employer to recognize the petitioner union as the sole bargaining agent pending final disposal of the complaint. Aggrieved by this order, both the employer and the other union (BEST Jagrut Kamgar Sanghatana) filed separate writ petitions before the High Court. The High Court heard both petitions together. The main legal issue was whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction under Section 30(2) to grant interim relief that effectively granted the final relief sought in the complaint. The High Court analyzed the scope of Section 30(2) and held that the power to grant interim relief is limited to ancillary or protective relief and cannot be used to grant final relief at an interim stage. The court observed that directing recognition of a union as sole bargaining agent would amount to granting the final relief, which is beyond the scope of interim relief. The High Court also noted that the Industrial Court had not considered the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss properly. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Industrial Court for fresh consideration of the interim application in accordance with law. The petitions were disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Trade Union Recognition - Interim Relief under Section 30(2) of MRTU & PULP Act - The Industrial Court cannot grant interim relief that effectively grants the final relief sought in the main complaint. The power under Section 30(2) is limited to granting ancillary or protective interim relief to prevent irreparable injury or maintain status quo, and cannot be used to direct recognition of a union as sole bargaining agent at an interim stage. (Paras 10-15) B) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practices - Jurisdiction of Industrial Court - The Industrial Court has jurisdiction to entertain complaints regarding unfair labour practices under the MRTU & PULP Act, but its interim relief powers under Section 30(2) are circumscribed and cannot be exercised to grant final relief. The court must consider prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss before granting interim relief. (Paras 8-12) C) Industrial Law - Recognition of Union - Interim Direction - The Industrial Court's order directing the employer to recognize the petitioner union as the sole bargaining agent pending final adjudication was held to be beyond its jurisdiction under Section 30(2) as it amounted to granting final relief. The High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. (Paras 13-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court has jurisdiction under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 to grant interim relief directing the employer to recognize a particular union as the sole bargaining agent, which would amount to granting final relief at an interim stage.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (WP No. 9332 of 2015) and dismissed the writ petition filed by the BEST Workers Union (WP No. 1457 of 2015). The impugned interim order of the Industrial Court dated 19th December 2025 was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Industrial Court for fresh consideration of the interim application in accordance with law, after hearing all parties.
Law Points
- Industrial Court jurisdiction under Section 30(2) of MRTU & PULP Act is limited to granting interim relief that is ancillary or protective
- not final relief
- interim relief cannot be granted if it amounts to granting the final relief sought
- the power under Section 30(2) is discretionary and must be exercised cautiously
- the Industrial Court must consider prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- and irreparable loss.
