Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad, in a writ petition filed by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC), challenged an interim order dated 14.12.2017 passed by the Industrial Court, Aurangabad in Complaint (ULP) No.288/2017. The Industrial Court had stayed a circular dated 14.07.2017 introduced by the MSRTC and directed that a notice be issued to Mr. Mukesh Digambarrao Tigote for cancellation of his deputation. The High Court identified three issues: (1) whether the Industrial Court can stay a circular without concluding that Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been prima facie violated; (2) whether a worker on deputation for a specific period can continue at the deputed location without any official extension; and (3) whether the Industrial Court can grant interim relief before concluding that the ULP Complaint is tenable, in the face of an objection raised in the Written Statement. The High Court held that the Industrial Court had erred in granting interim relief without first determining whether there was a prima facie violation of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It also held that a worker on deputation cannot continue beyond the specified period without an official extension. Furthermore, the Industrial Court should have first decided the preliminary issue of maintainability raised in the Written Statement before granting any interim relief. Consequently, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned interim order and directed the Industrial Court to decide the complaint afresh in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Interim Relief - Prima Facie Case - Industrial Court cannot stay a circular without concluding that Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been prima facie violated - The court must first determine if there is a change in service conditions without notice, and only then can interim relief be granted (Paras 2, 6-10). B) Service Law - Deputation - Extension - A worker on deputation for a specific period cannot continue at the deputed location without any official extension - The deputation period is fixed and cannot be extended by implication or conduct (Paras 2, 11-13). C) Industrial Law - Interim Relief - Tenability of Complaint - Industrial Court cannot grant interim relief before concluding that the ULP Complaint is tenable, in the face of an objection raised in the Written Statement - The court must first decide the preliminary issue of maintainability before granting any interim relief (Paras 2, 14-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court can stay a circular without concluding that Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been prima facie violated; whether a worker on deputation for a specific period can continue at the deputed location without any official extension; whether the Industrial Court can grant interim relief before concluding that the ULP Complaint is tenable, in the face of an objection raised in the Written Statement.
Final Decision
The impugned interim order dated 14.12.2017 passed by the Industrial Court, Aurangabad in Complaint (ULP) No.288/2017 is quashed and set aside. The Industrial Court is directed to decide the complaint afresh in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Industrial Court cannot stay a circular without concluding that Section 9A of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 has been prima facie violated
- Worker on deputation cannot continue at deputed location without official extension
- Industrial Court cannot grant interim relief before concluding that ULP Complaint is tenable in face of objection raised in Written Statement
