Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Institute of Design of Electrical Measuring Instruments, an autonomous body, challenged a common order passed by the Industrial Court at Mumbai on a preliminary issue regarding whether the Central Government is the appropriate government in relation to the Petitioner under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Petitioner contended that under the amended definition of 'appropriate government', the Institute being an autonomous body owned or controlled by the Central Government, the Central Government is the appropriate government. On this basis, the Petitioner objected to the jurisdiction of the State Industrial Court to entertain complaints under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Industrial Court framed a preliminary issue and, after hearing evidence, held that the Central Government is not the appropriate government. The Petitioner challenged this order by way of writ petitions. The High Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the petitions, holding that the Petitioner is not owned or controlled by the Central Government, as the Central Government does not exercise deep and pervasive control over its management and affairs. The Court noted that the Petitioner is an autonomous body registered under the Societies Registration Act and is not a department of the Central Government. The Court upheld the Industrial Court's finding that the State Government is the appropriate government and that the State Industrial Court has jurisdiction to entertain the complaints.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Appropriate Government - Ownership and Control - Section 2(a) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The issue was whether the Petitioner, an autonomous body, is owned or controlled by the Central Government so as to make the Central Government the appropriate government. The Court held that the Petitioner is not owned or controlled by the Central Government, as the Central Government does not exercise deep and pervasive control over its management and affairs. The State Government is the appropriate government, and the State Industrial Court has jurisdiction. (Paras 3-5)
B) Industrial Law - Jurisdiction of Industrial Court - MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The Petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the State Industrial Court to entertain complaints under the MRTU & PULP Act on the ground that the Central Government is the appropriate government. The Court held that since the Central Government is not the appropriate government, the State Industrial Court has jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Government is the appropriate government in relation to the Petitioner- Institute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and consequently whether the State Industrial Court has jurisdiction to entertain complaints under the MRTU & PULP Act.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the Industrial Court's order that the Central Government is not the appropriate government and that the State Industrial Court has jurisdiction to entertain the complaints under the MRTU & PULP Act.
Law Points
- Appropriate government under Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Ownership and control by Central Government
- Jurisdiction of State Industrial Court under MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (04) 36
Writ Petition No.415 of 2016 with Writ Petition No.425 of 2016
Mr. V.P. Vaidya i/b Mr. M.M. Agavekar for the Petitioner, Mr. Pradyumna M. Mokashi for the Respondent
Institute of Design of Electrical Measuring Instruments
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an order of the Industrial Court on a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction under the MRTU & PULP Act.
Remedy Sought
The Petitioner sought to quash the Industrial Court's order and to hold that the Central Government is the appropriate government, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the State Industrial Court.
Filing Reason
The Petitioner objected to the jurisdiction of the State Industrial Court to entertain complaints under the MRTU & PULP Act, contending that the Central Government is the appropriate government under the ID Act.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court by its order dated 18 December 2015 held that the Central Government is not the appropriate government and that the State Industrial Court has jurisdiction.
Issues
Whether the Central Government is the appropriate government in relation to the Petitioner- Institute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether the State Industrial Court has jurisdiction to entertain complaints under the MRTU & PULP Act against the Petitioner.
Submissions/Arguments
The Petitioner argued that under the amended definition of 'appropriate government', the Institute being an autonomous body owned or controlled by the Central Government, the Central Government is the appropriate government.
The Respondent argued that the Petitioner is not owned or controlled by the Central Government and that the State Government is the appropriate government.
Ratio Decidendi
The ratio decidendi is that for an autonomous body to be considered as owned or controlled by the Central Government for the purpose of determining the appropriate government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government must exercise deep and pervasive control over the management and affairs of the body. Mere supervision or funding is not sufficient. In this case, the Petitioner was not owned or controlled by the Central Government, and therefore the State Government is the appropriate government.
Judgment Excerpts
The order was on a preliminary issue as to whether the Central Government is the appropriate government in relation to any industrial dispute concerning the Petitioner under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
It is the case of the Petitioner that under the amended definition of the 'appropriate government' under the ID Act, the Institute being an autonomous body owned or controlled by the Central Government, the Central Government is the appropriate government with respect to the Petitioner, for any industrial dispute arising under that Act.
Procedural History
The Respondent filed complaints under the MRTU & PULP Act before the Industrial Court at Mumbai. The Petitioner raised a preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction, contending that the Central Government is the appropriate government. The Industrial Court framed a preliminary issue and, after evidence, passed an order on 18 December 2015 holding that the Central Government is not the appropriate government. The Petitioner challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No.415 of 2016 and Writ Petition No.425 of 2016 before the Bombay High Court, which were heard and dismissed on 20 April 2016.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(a)
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971:
