Bombay High Court Quashes Industrial Court Order Directing Employer to Bear Advocate Costs for Workmen in Domestic Enquiry — MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 — Held that Industrial Court exceeded jurisdiction by imposing financial burden on employer without legal basis.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 131
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, M/s. Esdee Paints Ltd. and its directors, challenged an order dated 16.08.2016 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane, in Revision Application (ULP) No.28 of 2016. The Industrial Court had allowed the revision filed by the respondent union, Sarva Shramik Sangh, and directed the petitioners to pay Rs.10,000/- for each group of employees within one month. This direction was in connection with a domestic enquiry initiated against six workmen of the petitioner company, who were charged with various misconducts. The respondent union had filed Complaint (ULP) No.152 of 2014 under Items 1(a), (b), and (f) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). In the complaint, the union filed an interim application (Exh.U2) seeking various reliefs, including a direction to the employer to allow the workmen to engage an advocate of their choice and to bear the cost of such advocate's travelling and food expenses. During the proceedings, the parties reached an understanding, and a pursis was filed on 13.02.2015 recording the agreement. Clause (i) stated that the condition of signing the suspension register was withdrawn, and clause (ii) stated that the workmen could engage an advocate of their choice at their own cost. The Labour Court, by order dated 20.07.2015, dismissed the interim application. However, the Industrial Court, in revision, set aside the Labour Court's order and directed the employer to pay Rs.10,000/- per group of employees. The High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, examined the legality of the Industrial Court's order. The High Court noted that the MRTU & PULP Act does not contain any provision that empowers the Industrial Court to direct the employer to bear the cost of the workmen's defence representative in a domestic enquiry. The High Court emphasized that the Industrial Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing a financial burden on the employer without any legal basis. Furthermore, the High Court observed that the parties had already agreed through the pursis that the workmen would bear their own costs, and the Industrial Court could not override this consent. The High Court held that the Industrial Court's order was without jurisdiction and set it aside, restoring the Labour Court's order dated 20.07.2015.

Headnote

A) Industrial Law - Interim Relief - Advocate Costs in Domestic Enquiry - MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, Schedule IV Items 1(a)(b)(f) - The Industrial Court directed the employer to pay Rs.10,000/- per group of employees to bear the cost of engaging an advocate in a domestic enquiry. The High Court held that such a direction was without jurisdiction as the MRTU & PULP Act does not provide for the employer to bear the cost of the workmen's defence representative. The interim relief granted by the Industrial Court was set aside. (Paras 5-7)

B) Industrial Law - Consent Terms - Binding Effect - MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The parties had filed a pursis recording an understanding that the workmen could engage an advocate of their choice at their own cost. The Industrial Court ignored this consent and imposed a financial burden on the employer. The High Court held that the Industrial Court could not override the consent terms and grant relief beyond what was agreed. (Paras 4-7)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Industrial Court could direct the employer to pay Rs.10,000/- per group of employees to enable them to engage an advocate of their choice in a domestic enquiry, under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 16.08.2016 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane, and restored the order dated 20.07.2015 passed by the Labour Court. Rule made absolute accordingly.

Law Points

  • Industrial Court cannot direct employer to bear cost of advocate for workmen in domestic enquiry
  • MRTU & PULP Act does not provide for such relief
  • interim relief must be based on legal provisions
  • not equity.
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (BOM) (10) 72

Writ Petition No.11414 of 2016

2016-10-07

R. M. Savant

A. K. Jalisatgi i/by Ratnesh R. Mishra for Petitioners, Ravindra Nair for Respondent

M/s. Esdee Paints Ltd. & Ors.

Sarva Shramik Sangh

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging an order of the Industrial Court in a revision application under the MRTU & PULP Act.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought quashing of the Industrial Court order dated 16.08.2016 directing them to pay Rs.10,000/- per group of employees for engaging an advocate in a domestic enquiry.

Filing Reason

The Industrial Court allowed the revision filed by the respondent union and set aside the Labour Court's order dismissing the interim application for advocate costs.

Previous Decisions

Labour Court by order dated 20.07.2015 dismissed the interim application (Exh.U2) filed by the respondent union. Industrial Court in Revision Application (ULP) No.28 of 2016 allowed the revision and directed payment of Rs.10,000/- per group of employees.

Issues

Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to direct the employer to bear the cost of the workmen's advocate in a domestic enquiry under the MRTU & PULP Act. Whether the Industrial Court could override the consent terms recorded in the pursis filed by the parties.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the MRTU & PULP Act does not provide for any such direction and the Industrial Court exceeded its jurisdiction. Respondent union argued that the direction was necessary to ensure fair representation for the workmen in the domestic enquiry.

Ratio Decidendi

The MRTU & PULP Act does not contain any provision empowering the Industrial Court to direct the employer to bear the cost of the workmen's defence representative in a domestic enquiry. Such a direction is without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.

Judgment Excerpts

The MRTU & PULP Act does not contain any provision which empowers the Industrial Court to direct the employer to bear the cost of the workmen's defence representative in a domestic enquiry. The Industrial Court has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order.

Procedural History

The respondent union filed Complaint (ULP) No.152 of 2014 before the Labour Court under the MRTU & PULP Act. An interim application Exh.U2 was filed seeking various reliefs including advocate costs. The Labour Court dismissed the application on 20.07.2015. The union filed Revision Application (ULP) No.28 of 2016 before the Industrial Court, which allowed the revision on 16.08.2016. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition before the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act): Schedule IV, Items 1(a), 1(b), 1(f)
  • Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Upholds Dismissal of Employee in Fraudulent Appointment Case — Labour Court's Modification of Punishment Set Aside. Procurement of Employment by False Caste Certificate Constitutes Serious Misconduct Justifying Dismissal Und...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Nagpur Metro Appeal, Sets Aside High Court Order to Hand Over Possession of Land to Private Lessee. Metro Rail Project Land Allotment Upheld Subject to Outcome of Pending Civil Suit.