Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Engineering Workers Association, a registered trade union, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 20th February 2016 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane. The Industrial Court had rejected the petitioner's application under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act). The application sought a direction to the respondents, M/s Radium Creation Ltd. and its directors, not to give effect to transfer orders dated 19th December 2015 of certain employees and to allow them to resume work. The application was filed in a complaint under Section 28 read with Items 3, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, alleging unfair labour practices. The petitioner union had been representing employees of the respondent company and had various pending proceedings against the company. The Industrial Court, after hearing both sides, held that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss. The court noted that the transfer order was issued in the normal course of business and not as a punitive measure. The High Court, upon review, found no perversity or jurisdictional error in the Industrial Court's order and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's discretion.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Interim Relief - Section 30(2) MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 - Transfer of Employees - The Industrial Court rejected the application for interim relief seeking stay of transfer orders, holding that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss. The court noted that the transfer order was issued in the normal course of business and not as a punitive measure. (Paras 1-10) B) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Items 3, 9, 10 of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 - The complaint alleged that the transfer of employees was an unfair labour practice. The court held that mere pendency of industrial disputes does not bar the employer from transferring employees in the absence of mala fides or violation of standing orders. (Paras 2-8) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court declined to interfere with the Industrial Court's order, finding no perversity or jurisdictional error. The court upheld the Industrial Court's discretion in refusing interim relief. (Paras 1, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in rejecting the application for interim relief under Section 30(2) of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, seeking stay of transfer orders of employees during pendency of complaint alleging unfair labour practices
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order rejecting the application for interim relief.
Law Points
- Interim relief under Section 30(2) of MRTU and PULP Act requires strong prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- and irreparable loss
- transfer order cannot be stayed merely because it is issued during pendency of industrial dispute
- employer has right to transfer employees unless mala fide or in violation of standing orders or contract
