Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, M/s. Esdee Paints Ltd. and its directors, challenged an order dated 16.08.2016 passed by the Learned Member of 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. The background of the case involves a complaint filed by the respondent union 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). The complaint arose from a departmental enquiry initiated against six workmen of the petitioner company who were charged with various misconducts. In the complaint, the union filed an interim application (Exh.U2) seeking several 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. The pursis stated that the condition of signing the suspension register was withdrawn, and the workmen could engage an advocate of their choice, but the employer would not bear the cost.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/- for each group of employees. The High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, examined the matter. The court noted that the Industrial Court had ignored the consent terms recorded in the pursis, which clearly stated that the employer would not bear the cost. The court further held that there is no provision in the MRTU & PULP Act or any other law that obligates an employer to bear the cost of the workmen's defence advocate in a domestic enquiry. The Industrial Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing such a direction. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Industrial Court's order, and restored the Labour Court's order dated 20.07.2015.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Domestic Enquiry - Defence Representative - Employer's Obligation to Bear Cost - Items 1(a), (b), (f) of Schedule IV, MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The issue was whether the Industrial Court could direct the employer to pay Rs.10,000/- to each group of employees to engage an advocate of their choice in a domestic enquiry. The High Court held that there is no provision in the MRTU & PULP Act or any other law requiring the employer to bear the cost of the workmen's defence advocate in a domestic enquiry. The Industrial Court's order was set aside as it exceeded its jurisdiction. (Paras 5-7) B) Industrial Law - Interim Relief - 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 but the employer would not bear the cost. The Industrial Court ignored this consent term and directed payment. The High Court held that the Industrial Court could not have passed an order contrary to the agreed terms. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in directing the employer to pay Rs.10,000/- to each group of employees for engaging an advocate of their choice in a domestic departmental enquiry.
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
- Employer not liable to bear cost of workmen's defence advocate in domestic enquiry
- MRTU & PULP Act does not impose such obligation
- Industrial Court exceeded jurisdiction by directing payment of advocate fees
