Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, M/s. Livewel Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in providing various services to airline companies within airport precincts, including exterior and interior aircraft cleaning, baggage handling, and customer care. Respondent No.1, Bhartiya Kamgar Sena, a registered trade union of the Petitioner's workmen, filed a complaint of unfair labour practice under items 1(a), (b) and 6 of Schedule II and items 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 before the Industrial Court at Mumbai, seeking benefits of permanency and wages as permanent employees for sixty workmen. The Petitioner raised a preliminary objection that the activities engaged in by it are air transport services, making it an 'air transport service industry' controlled by the Central Government, and thus the Central Government was the appropriate government for disputes between itself and its workmen, ousting the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court rejected this objection, holding that the Petitioner was neither an industry carried on by the Central Government nor under its authority, and that the Central Government was not the appropriate government. The Industrial Court observed that services like aircraft cleaning and baggage handling are not air transport services. The Petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court examined Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which defines 'appropriate government' as the Central Government in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified. The Court found that the Petitioner's services are not air transport services and that the Petitioner is not an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government. Consequently, the Central Government is not the appropriate government, and the Industrial Court has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Appropriate Government - Jurisdiction of Industrial Court - Section 2(a)(i) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The Petitioner, providing aircraft cleaning and baggage handling services, challenged the maintainability of an unfair labour practice complaint before the Industrial Court on the ground that the Central Government was the appropriate government. The Industrial Court held that such services are not 'air transport services' and the Petitioner is not an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government. The High Court upheld this finding, dismissing the petition. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Petitioner, engaged in providing services allied to air transportation such as aircraft cleaning and baggage handling, is an 'air transport service industry' controlled by the Central Government, making the Central Government the appropriate government for industrial disputes, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order that the complaint is maintainable before the Industrial Court.
Law Points
- Appropriate government
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Section 2(a)(i)
- MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Air transport service
- Industry carried on by or under authority of Central Government
- Controlled industry
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (11) 26
WRIT PETITION NO.3065 OF 2006
Ms. Anjali P. Purav for the Petitioner, Mr. M.D. Nagle for Respondent No.1
M/s. Livewel Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd.
Bhartiya Kamgar Sena And Another
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Industrial Court rejecting a preliminary objection as to maintainability of an unfair labour practice complaint.
Remedy Sought
The Petitioner sought to quash the Industrial Court's order and to hold that the complaint was not maintainable as the Central Government was the appropriate government.
Filing Reason
The Petitioner contended that its activities constitute air transport services, making it an industry controlled by the Central Government, and thus the Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court at Mumbai rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the Petitioner is not an air transport service industry and the Central Government is not the appropriate government.
Issues
Whether the Petitioner's services (aircraft cleaning, baggage handling) constitute 'air transport services' making the Central Government the appropriate government under Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether the Industrial Court under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of unfair labour practice against the Petitioner.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that its activities are allied to air transportation and thus it is an 'air transport service industry' controlled by the Central Government, making the Central Government the appropriate government.
Respondent No.1 (union) argued that the services provided by the Petitioner are not air transport services and the Petitioner is not under the authority of the Central Government, hence the Industrial Court has jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
Services such as aircraft cleaning and baggage handling provided by the Petitioner are not 'air transport services' and the Petitioner is not an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government. Therefore, the Central Government is not the appropriate government under Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the Industrial Court under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Judgment Excerpts
The Industrial Court inter alia observed that the services of cleaning of aircrafts and handling of baggage provided by the Petitioner were not air transport services.
Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1971 defines 'appropriate government' to be the Central Government in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government...... or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government.
Procedural History
Respondent No.1 (union) filed a complaint of unfair labour practice before the Industrial Court at Mumbai. The Petitioner raised a preliminary objection as to maintainability. The Industrial Court rejected the objection on 29 November 2016. The Petitioner challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No.3065 of 2006 before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on the same date.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(a)(i)
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act): Schedule II items 1(a), (b) and 6, Schedule IV items 6, 9 and 10
