Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Maharashtra Remote Sensing Application Centre, challenged the judgment and order dated 07.02.2007 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint ULPA No. 292 of 1999. The respondent, Deepak Jangluji Khandale, had filed a complaint invoking Item Nos. 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act based on Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, alleging retrenchment and seeking reemployment. The Industrial Court rejected the complaint on the ground that retrenchment was not established and no details were given about employment of juniors. However, the Industrial Court directed the employer to consider the complainant for reemployment as and when work is available. The High Court held that to attract Section 25H, it must be established that the complainant was retrenched and the employer proposed to employ any person. The Industrial Court had recorded a finding that retrenchment could not be considered and there were no details of employment of juniors. The alleged retrenchment was on 31.03.1991, and the complaint was filed in 1999 without making out a case of employment being provided to any other person. Since the Industrial Court rejected the claim, it could not have issued a direction for reemployment. The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Industrial Court's order, and dismissed the complaint.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Retrenchment - Reemployment - Section 25H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The Industrial Court rejected the complaint under Section 25H for failure to establish retrenchment and employment of juniors, but directed the employer to consider reemployment as and when work is available. The High Court held that once the claim under Section 25H is rejected, the Industrial Court cannot issue a direction for reemployment. The direction was quashed and the complaint dismissed. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court could direct the employer to consider the complainant for reemployment after rejecting the complaint under Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for lack of retrenchment and employment of juniors.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. The judgment and order dated 07.02.2007 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint ULP No. 292 of 1999 is quashed and set aside. The said complaint is dismissed. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 25H of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 requires establishment of retrenchment and employer's proposal to employ any person
- Industrial Court cannot issue direction for reemployment after rejecting claim for retrenchment
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (04) 130
WRIT PETITION NO. 5276 of 2007
Shri A.R.Patil for Petitioner, Shri V.P.Marpakwar for Respondent No.1, Smt. Rashi Deshpande for Respondent No.2
Maharashtra Remote Sensing Application Centre, through its Director, VNIT Campus, Nagpur
Deepak Jangluji Khandale, State of Maharashtra, Learned Member, Industrial Court
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the judgment and order of the Industrial Court in a complaint under the MRTU and PULP Act based on Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (employer) sought quashing of the Industrial Court's direction to consider the complainant for reemployment.
Filing Reason
The Industrial Court rejected the complaint under Section 25H but directed the employer to consider reemployment, which the employer challenged as without jurisdiction.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court in Complaint ULPA No. 292 of 1999 rejected the complaint under Section 25H but directed the employer to consider reemployment as and when work is available.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court could issue a direction for reemployment after rejecting the complaint under Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Industrial Court having rejected the claim under Section 25H could not have issued a direction for reemployment.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the complainant must establish retrenchment and the employer's proposal to employ any person. If the Industrial Court rejects the claim for failure to establish these elements, it cannot issue a direction for reemployment as and when work is available, as such direction is without jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
In order to attract the provisions of Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act what is required to be establish is that the complainant was retrenched from service and the employer proposed to take into his employment any person.
The Industrial Court having rejected the claim, could not have issued the direction to the employer directing reemployment as and when the work is available.
Procedural History
The respondent filed Complaint ULPA No. 292 of 1999 before the Industrial Court under the MRTU and PULP Act based on Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Industrial Court rejected the complaint on 07.02.2007 but directed the employer to consider reemployment. The employer challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No. 5276 of 2007 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 25H
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act): Schedule IV, Items 5 and 9
