Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vasant Manaji Kamble, was originally Complainant No.2 in Complaint (ULP) No. 23 of 2009 before the Industrial Court. He was aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 17.12.2012 delivered by the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court in paragraphs 7 and 18 of its judgment concluded that the entire complaint was not maintainable since both complainants did not fall within the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner's counsel argued that once the Industrial Court came to that conclusion, it lost jurisdiction and could not have exercised jurisdiction by going into the contentions and averments put forth by both sides. He submitted that all conclusions arrived at pursuant to the conclusion that the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction would render those conclusions a nullity. He further submitted that there was no evidence on record to convince the Industrial Court that the petitioner was not a 'workman'. The petitioner's case related to a claim for unpaid suspension allowance as per the V Pay Commission. The respondents opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner had been subjected to disciplinary proceedings and suffered dismissal from service on account of proved misconduct by order of punishment dated 17.10.2005, and his appeal before the University and College Tribunal was dismissed on 5.9.2006. They also submitted that the management had approached the Civil Court for recovery of misappropriated amount and the suit had been decreed. The High Court, after hearing both sides, allowed the petition, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Industrial Court, and remitted the matter back to the Industrial Court for fresh consideration on merits, keeping all points open.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Jurisdiction - Maintainability of Complaint - Once the Industrial Court concluded that the complainants did not fall within the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that the complaint was not maintainable, it lost jurisdiction and could not have proceeded to decide the contentions and averments on merits. All conclusions arrived at thereafter are rendered a nullity. (Paras 6-7)
B) Industrial Law - Definition of Workman - Section 2(s) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The petitioner claimed unpaid suspension allowance as per the V Pay Commission. The Industrial Court held that the petitioner was not a 'workman' without there being evidence on record to support that conclusion. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court could proceed to decide the merits of the complaint after holding that the complainants were not 'workmen' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thus the complaint was not maintainable.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 17.12.2012 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 23 of 2009, and remitted the matter back to the Industrial Court for fresh consideration on merits, keeping all points open.
Law Points
- Industrial Court loses jurisdiction once it concludes complaint is not maintainable
- cannot decide merits thereafter
- definition of workman under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (07) 9
WRIT PETITION NO. 7012 OF 2013
Shri Natu Sharad V. for Petitioner, Shri Garud N.C. for Respondents 1 & 2, Smt. Shinde V.A. AGP for Respondent 3
The Chairman, Bhaskar Pandurang Hiwale Education Society, Vishwast Sanstha, Ahmednagar; The Director, The Center for Rural Development Institute of Social Work and Research, Station Road, Ahmednagar; The Special District Welfare Officer, Office of Social Welfare, Datarange Mala, Ahmednagar
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 dismissing Complaint (ULP) No. 23 of 2009 as not maintainable.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to set aside the Industrial Court's order and to have the complaint restored for fresh consideration on merits.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the Industrial Court's conclusion that the complaint was not maintainable as the petitioner was not a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the subsequent decision on merits.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 23 of 2009 held that the complainants were not 'workmen' and dismissed the complaint. The petitioner had also been dismissed from service by order dated 17.10.2005, and his appeal before the University and College Tribunal was dismissed on 5.9.2006.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court could proceed to decide the merits of the complaint after holding that the complainants were not 'workmen' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thus the complaint was not maintainable.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel argued that once the Industrial Court concluded that the complaint was not maintainable, it lost jurisdiction and could not have decided the merits; all conclusions thereafter are a nullity. He also argued that there was no evidence to show the petitioner was not a 'workman'.
Respondents' counsel argued that the petitioner had been dismissed from service after disciplinary proceedings and his appeal was dismissed, and that the management had obtained a decree for recovery of misappropriated amount.
Ratio Decidendi
Once the Industrial Court concluded that the complaint was not maintainable because the complainants were not 'workmen' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it lost jurisdiction and could not proceed to decide the merits of the case. Any findings on merits after such a conclusion are without jurisdiction and a nullity.
Judgment Excerpts
Once the Industrial Court came to a conclusion that the Complaint was not tenable, it lost jurisdiction and could not have exercised jurisdiction by going into the contentions and averments put forth by both the sides.
All conclusions arrived at pursuant to the conclusion that the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction, would render the said conclusions a nullity.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No. 23 of 2009 before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court delivered judgment and order on 17.12.2012 dismissing the complaint as not maintainable. The petitioner then filed the present Writ Petition No. 7012 of 2013 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(s)
