Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s NRB Bearings Limited, challenged an order dated 08/07/2015 passed by the Industrial Court, Jalna, in Complaint (ULP) No.56/2015. The respondent workman, Alisab Bapusab Shaikh, was transferred from Jalna to Pantnagar by order dated 26/02/2015. He challenged the transfer by filing a complaint under Section 28(1) read with Items 3, 5, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act), along with an application for interim relief under Section 30(2). Initially, the Industrial Court granted ad-interim protection on 07/03/2015, but by order dated 11/03/2015, it rejected the interim application (Exh.U-2) and vacated the protection, directing the workman to report at the place of transfer by 16/03/2015. The workman complied and reported at Pantnagar, but later submitted a medical certificate dated 07/04/2015 and sought leave on medical grounds. Subsequently, the workman filed another application (Exh.U-10) for urgent interim relief under Section 30(2), which the Industrial Court allowed on 08/07/2015, directing the employer to provide work at the original place (Jalna). The petitioner argued that since the workman had already complied with the transfer order and was on medical leave, the transfer was not in operation, and the complaint had become infructuous. The High Court agreed, holding that the Industrial Court's order was based on a misconception of facts and that the workman's compliance with the transfer order rendered the complaint infructuous. The High Court quashed the impugned order and allowed the petition, setting aside the interim relief granted by the Industrial Court.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Transfer of Workman - Interim Relief under Section 30(2) MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court granted interim relief directing the employer to provide work at the original place despite the workman having already reported at the transferred place and sought medical leave. The High Court held that once the workman complied with the transfer order, the transfer was not in operation and the complaint challenging the transfer became infructuous. The interim relief was set aside as it was based on a misconception of facts. (Paras 4-8) B) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Items 3,5,9,10 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The workman alleged that the transfer order constituted an unfair labour practice. The High Court noted that the workman had already reported at the transferred place and sought leave, indicating compliance. The court held that the transfer order was not per se an unfair labour practice and the Industrial Court's interim order was unsustainable. (Paras 4-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court could grant interim relief under Section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, directing the employer to provide work at the original place, when the workman had already complied with the transfer order and sought medical leave.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 08/07/2015 passed by the Industrial Court, Jalna, and set aside the interim relief granted under Section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act.
Law Points
- Transfer order
- Unfair labour practice
- Interim relief
- Section 30(2) MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Schedule IV Items 3
- 5
- 9
- 10
- Industrial Court jurisdiction
