Case Note & Summary
The case involved a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Industrial Court, Latur, which had partly allowed a revision petition and directed the petitioners to address the Labour Court in a pending criminal complaint under Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The petitioners were public officials serving in the Agriculture Department. Earlier, the Industrial Court had granted certain reliefs to the respondents in Complaint (ULP) No.40/1992 (new No.3/2004). Alleging disobedience of those directions, the respondents filed Criminal Complaint No.6/2011 under Section 48(1) before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, after perusing the complaint and relevant orders, issued process on 8 February 2011, observing a prima facie case. Aggrieved, the petitioners challenged the issuance of process by filing a revision under Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court partly allowed the revision on 13 July 2015 and directed the petitioners to show cause before the Labour Court why process should not be issued. Assailing that order, the petitioners approached the High Court through the instant writ petition. A core legal issue was raised as to whether a revision under Section 44 is maintainable to challenge the issuance of process in a criminal complaint under Section 48(1) or whether the only remedy lies under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. During the course of hearing, the counsel for the respondents made a statement on instructions that the criminal complaint pertained to the disobedience of directions given by the Industrial Court regarding the availability of work, but the Labour Court in a Section 48(1) complaint would not have jurisdiction to examine that question. Consequently, the respondents expressed their willingness to withdraw Criminal Complaint No.6/2011 with liberty to approach the Industrial Court under Item 9 of Schedule IV for redressal of grievances. The petitioners’ counsel did not oppose the proposed withdrawal. In view of this development, the High Court observed that it was unnecessary to decide the legal issue regarding the maintainability of the revision. The Court accepted the statement of the respondents and disposed of the writ petition accordingly, without pronouncing on the question of law. The withdrawal rendered the controversy academic, and the petition stood disposed of in terms of the statement made by the respondents.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practices - Maintainability of Revision against Issuance of Process - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Sections 44, 48(1) - The issue arose whether accused in a criminal complaint under Section 48(1) could challenge issuance of process by filing a revision under Section 44 before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court had partly allowed the revision and remitted the matter to the Labour Court. During the writ petition hearing, respondents agreed to withdraw the criminal complaint with liberty to file a complaint under Item 9 of Schedule IV. The Court accepted the withdrawal and disposed of the petition without deciding the legal question. Held, the petition was disposed of in terms of the withdrawal. (Paras 3-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the remedy of revision under section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 is available to the accused-respondents before the Labour Court for questioning the issuance of process.
Final Decision
In view of the statement of respondents' counsel that they will withdraw Criminal Complaint No.6/2011 with liberty to approach Industrial Court under Item 9 of Schedule IV, the petition was disposed of without deciding the legal issue of maintainability of revision. The withdrawal was accepted, and the petition accordingly disposed of.
