Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd., challenged the judgment and order dated 12.02.2014 of the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.100/2008, which allowed the complaint filed by the respondent, Ravindra Balakrishna Deshpande. The Industrial Court held that the punishment imposed on the respondent was in breach of Service Rules and without a domestic enquiry, granting consequential reliefs. The petitioners argued that the respondent, a Manager, was not a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore the Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction. Despite this specific pleading in the written statement, the Industrial Court did not frame an issue on this jurisdictional point. Additionally, the petitioners' advocate remained absent due to illness, leading to an exparte judgment. The High Court noted that the issue of whether the respondent is a workman goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court. Without deciding this preliminary issue, the Industrial Court could not proceed. The High Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the Industrial Court for fresh adjudication, directing it to frame an issue on the workman status and decide the complaint afresh. The parties were given liberty to lead evidence on this issue. The High Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Jurisdiction - Workman Status - Section 2(s) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Section 3(5) MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court failed to frame an issue on whether the respondent was a workman, despite the petitioner's specific pleading in the written statement that the respondent was a Manager and not a workman. The High Court held that this issue pertains to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court and must be decided first. The impugned judgment was set aside and the matter remanded to the Industrial Court for fresh adjudication after framing the necessary issue. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court erred in not framing an issue regarding the respondent's status as a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which goes to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court.
Final Decision
The High Court set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 12.02.2014 and remanded the matter to the Industrial Court for fresh adjudication. The Industrial Court was directed to frame an issue on whether the respondent is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Section 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, and to decide the complaint afresh after giving the parties an opportunity to lead evidence on this issue. The High Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.
Law Points
- Jurisdictional issue must be decided first
- Industrial Court must frame issue on workman status
- Remand for fresh adjudication
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (08) 7
Writ Petition No. 6085 of 2014
Vidwauns Sagar S., Rohit Sarvadyna (for petitioners), A S Deshpande (for respondent)
Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd.
Ravindra Balakrishna Deshpande
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 allowing a complaint alleging unfair labour practices.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to set aside the Industrial Court's order and to have the complaint dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Filing Reason
The petitioners contended that the respondent was not a workman and the Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction, and that the impugned order was passed exparte due to the advocate's absence.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court allowed the complaint and held the punishment imposed on the respondent to be in breach of Service Rules and without a domestic enquiry.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court erred in not framing an issue on the respondent's status as a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which goes to its jurisdiction.
Whether the impugned order was passed exparte and without considering the petitioners' contentions.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the respondent, being a Manager, is not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore the Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction.
The petitioners submitted that their advocate remained absent due to illness, leading to an exparte judgment without their contentions being heard.
Ratio Decidendi
The Industrial Court must first decide the jurisdictional issue of whether the complainant is a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it goes to the root of its jurisdiction. Failure to frame an issue on this point vitiates the proceedings.
Judgment Excerpts
In the Written Statement filed by the Petitioner, it has been specifically stated in paragraph 7 that the Respondent/original Complainant is a Manager working with the Bank and is not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
It is, therefore, stated that if the Respondent is not held to be a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Section 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, the complaint would be rendered untenable and the Industrial Court would not have any jurisdiction to be entertained.
Procedural History
The respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No.100/2008 before the Industrial Court, which was allowed on 12.02.2014. The petitioners challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No. 6085 of 2014 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The High Court heard the matter and passed the present order on 14.08.2015.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(s)
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act): Section 3(5)
