Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Parmatma Ek Sevak Nagarik Sahakari Bank, challenged the judgment and order dated 27.08.2008 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULPN) No. 25 of 2004. The respondent, Bandu Shriram Thavkar, an employee of the bank, had filed a complaint under Section 28 read with Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act), alleging unfair labour practice in the matter of promotion. The Industrial Court found that the respondent was senior to two other employees, Shri Ganesh Kamble and Shri Sheetal Wagh, who were promoted to the post of Assistant Branch Manager in supersession of the respondent. The Industrial Court directed the bank to consider the respondent's case for promotion to the post of Assistant Branch Manager with effect from 06.08.2001 with all consequential benefits. The bank filed a writ petition challenging this order. The High Court noted that the Industrial Court recorded the finding of supersession without the two promoted employees being joined as party respondents. The High Court held that such a finding could not be recorded in the absence of those persons, as it would affect their rights. The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order and remitted the complaint back to the Industrial Court for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity to the respondent to implead the affected persons. The High Court directed the Industrial Court to decide the complaint afresh within six months from the date of appearance of the parties.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Promotion - Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties - Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court recorded a finding that the complainant was senior to two other employees who were promoted in supersession, but those employees were not joined as parties. The High Court held that such a finding could not be recorded in their absence, as it would affect their rights. The order was quashed and set aside, and the complaint was remitted back to the Industrial Court for fresh consideration after impleading the affected persons. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court could grant relief to the complainant for promotion without impleading the persons who were promoted in supersession of the complainant as party respondents.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 27.08.2008, and remitted the complaint back to the Industrial Court for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity to the respondent to implead the affected persons. The Industrial Court was directed to decide the complaint afresh within six months from the date of appearance of the parties.
Law Points
- Non-joinder of necessary parties
- violation of principles of natural justice
- unfair labour practice under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act
