Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Indian Coffee Workers Coop. Society Ltd., challenged the maintainability of Complaint U.L.P. No.106/2015 filed by respondent employees Albert Tavid and others under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The respondents had earlier succeeded in a complaint under the same Act, with the Labour Court on 24/09/1996 holding that their termination on 30/11/1992 was an unfair labour practice and directing reinstatement with 50% back wages. That order attained finality. However, the petitioner did not comply. On 18/06/2015, the respondents filed a fresh complaint alleging that non-compliance of the earlier judgment amounted to an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The petitioner opposed, arguing that the earlier judgment was not an 'agreement, award or settlement' as required under Item 9. The Industrial Court rejected the petitioner's application for dismissal. The High Court framed the issue of maintainability. After hearing arguments, the Court analyzed Item 9, which covers failure to implement any 'award, settlement or order'. The Court held that the earlier judgment of the Labour Court is an 'order' passed under the Act, and its non-compliance squarely falls within Item 9. The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order and directing the complaint to proceed on merits. The Court emphasized that the remedy under Section 28 is available for enforcement of orders under the Act, and the complaint was maintainable.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Maintainability of Complaint - Section 28, Schedule IV Item 9, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The issue was whether a complaint alleging non-compliance of an earlier judgment under the same Act constitutes an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV - The Court held that the earlier judgment of the Labour Court directing reinstatement with back wages is an 'order' and its non-compliance amounts to an unfair labour practice under Item 9, which includes failure to implement any award, settlement, or order - The complaint was held maintainable (Paras 1-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 under Schedule IV Item 9 is maintainable for a declaration that non-compliance of the judgment in an earlier complaint filed under Section 28 of the Act of 1971 would amount to an unfair labour practice.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order rejecting the petitioner's application for dismissal of the complaint. The complaint was held maintainable and directed to proceed on merits.
Law Points
- Maintainability of complaint under Section 28 of MRTU & PULP Act for non-compliance of earlier judgment
- Interpretation of Schedule IV Item 9
- Unfair labour practice by failure to comply with judgment
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (09) 128
Writ Petition No.5671 of 2015
Shri M. R. Pillai for petitioner, Shri J. L. Bhoot with Shri A. J. Bhoot for respondent Nos.1 to 4
Indian Coffee Workers Coop. Society Ltd.
Albert s/o Tavid, Dinakaran s/o Shankaran, Thankachan Kurian, Manikraj Chitayan, Industrial Court, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the maintainability of a complaint under Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act alleging unfair labour practice due to non-compliance of an earlier judgment.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought dismissal of Complaint U.L.P. No.106/2015 on the ground that it was not maintainable under Schedule IV Item 9.
Filing Reason
Respondents filed a fresh complaint alleging that the petitioner's failure to comply with the earlier Labour Court judgment dated 24/09/1996 amounted to an unfair labour practice.
Previous Decisions
Labour Court by common judgment dated 24/09/1996 allowed earlier complaints, held termination as unfair labour practice, directed reinstatement with 50% back wages. That order attained finality.
Issues
Whether a complaint under Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act under Schedule IV Item 9 is maintainable for a declaration that non-compliance of the judgment in an earlier complaint filed under Section 28 of the Act of 1971 would amount to an unfair labour practice.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the earlier judgment of the Labour Court is not an 'agreement, award or settlement' as required under Item 9 of Schedule IV, hence the complaint is not maintainable.
Respondents argued that the earlier judgment is an 'order' passed under the Act and its non-compliance falls within Item 9, which includes failure to implement any award, settlement, or order.
Ratio Decidendi
The earlier judgment of the Labour Court directing reinstatement with back wages is an 'order' passed under the MRTU & PULP Act. Non-compliance of such an order amounts to an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV, which includes failure to implement any award, settlement, or order. Therefore, a complaint under Section 28 is maintainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 under Schedule IV Item 9 is maintainable for a declaration that noncompliance of the judgment in an earlier complaint filed under Section 28 of the Act of 1971 would amount to an unfair labour practice.
The Industrial Court rejected the application for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that an interim order...
Procedural History
Respondents filed Complaint U.L.P. No.106/2015 on 18/06/2015. Petitioner filed written statement and application for dismissal. Industrial Court rejected the application. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.5671 of 2015 challenging that order. High Court heard and dismissed the petition on 16/09/2016.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Section 28, Schedule IV Item 9
