Case Note & Summary
The case involves four writ petitions filed by industrial companies (M/s Saklecha Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., M/s Sudesh Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., M/s C.M. ReRolling Industries Pvt. Ltd., and M/s C.M. Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd.) against orders of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, granting interim relief to the Jalna Labour Union. The Industrial Court had passed orders on 28/01/2015, 28/01/2015, 30/01/2015, and 30/01/2015 respectively, restraining the petitioners from terminating the services of employees and from changing service conditions without following due process. The petitioners challenged these orders on the ground that the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to grant interim relief without first deciding the maintainability of the complaint. The High Court, after hearing arguments, held that under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act), the Industrial Court has the power to grant interim relief even before deciding maintainability. The court noted that the Industrial Court had considered the prima facie case and balance of convenience and found that the union had made out a case for interim protection. The High Court dismissed all four petitions, upholding the Industrial Court's orders. The court also directed that the main complaints be decided expeditiously, preferably within six months. The judgment was delivered by Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge on 19th October 2015.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Interim Relief - Section 30(2) of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Jurisdiction of Industrial Court - The Industrial Court has the power to grant interim relief under Section 30(2) even before deciding the maintainability of the main complaint. The court must consider prima facie case and balance of convenience. In this case, the Industrial Court granted interim relief restraining the petitioners from terminating services of employees and from changing service conditions, which was upheld by the High Court. (Paras 3-10) B) Industrial Law - Maintainability of Complaint - Section 30(2) of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court is not required to decide the maintainability of the complaint before granting interim relief. The High Court held that the Industrial Court can pass interim orders under Section 30(2) even if the main complaint is pending and maintainability is yet to be decided. (Paras 5-8) C) Industrial Law - Prima Facie Case - Section 30(2) of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court must be satisfied that a prima facie case exists and the balance of convenience is in favour of granting interim relief. The High Court found that the Industrial Court had correctly applied these principles. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court could grant interim relief under Section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, without first deciding the maintainability of the complaint, and whether the impugned orders granting interim relief were justified.
Final Decision
All four writ petitions are dismissed. The impugned orders of the Industrial Court are upheld. The Industrial Court is directed to decide the main complaints expeditiously, preferably within six months.
Law Points
- Industrial Court has jurisdiction under Section 30(2) of MRTU & PULP Act to grant interim relief
- Prima facie case and balance of convenience are relevant for interim relief
- Interim relief can be granted even if main complaint is pending
- No requirement to decide maintainability before interim relief
