Case Note & Summary
The case involves a challenge by M/s Prabhat Dairy Ltd and others (the employer) against an order of the Industrial Court at Thane, which allowed a complaint filed by Konkan Shramik Sangh (the respondent union) under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The complaint challenged transfer orders issued on 3 April 2017 to six security guards employed by the petitioner. The Industrial Court quashed the transfer orders, holding that the transfers constituted unfair labour practices under Item Nos. 3 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The employer challenged the order solely on the ground that the respondent union lacked locus standi because it was not a 'union' within the meaning of Section 3(17) of the MRTU & PULP Act, which defines 'union' as a trade union of employees registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The employer argued that the union did not meet the registration requirements, including minimum membership under Section 9A and office-bearer requirements under Section 22 of the Trade Unions Act. The High Court, however, rejected this argument, holding that the definition of 'union' under Section 3(17) does not impose a condition of registration for the purpose of filing a complaint. The court noted that the MRTU & PULP Act itself does not require a union to be registered under the Trade Unions Act to have locus standi. The petition was dismissed, upholding the Industrial Court's order.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Locus Standi of Trade Union - Definition of 'Union' under Section 3(17) of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The court considered whether a union must be registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 to maintain a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act. The Industrial Court had rejected the employer's objection on locus standi and quashed transfer orders. The High Court held that the definition of 'union' under Section 3(17) of the MRTU & PULP Act does not require registration under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 as a precondition for filing a complaint. The court reasoned that the definition merely describes a union as a trade union of employees registered under the Trade Unions Act, but the Act itself does not mandate such registration for locus standi. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a trade union must be registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 to have locus standi to file a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order that the respondent union had locus standi to file the complaint and that the transfer orders were rightly quashed.
Law Points
- Locus standi of trade union
- Definition of 'union' under MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Section 3(17) read with Trade Unions Act
- 1926
- Sections 9A and 22
- Unfair labour practices
- Transfer of employees
Case Details
WRIT PETITION NO.6103 OF 2018
Mr. T. Prabhakaran I/b Mr. Rakesh Reddy for the Petitioners, Mr. K.S. Bapat I/b Mr. Avinash Fatangare for the Respondent
M/s Prabhat Dairy Ltd and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an order of the Industrial Court allowing a complaint of unfair labour practices and quashing transfer orders.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to set aside the Industrial Court's order on the ground that the respondent union lacked locus standi.
Filing Reason
The petitioners challenged the locus standi of the respondent union to file a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act, arguing that the union was not registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court at Thane allowed the respondent's complaint and set aside the transfer orders dated 3 April 2017.
Issues
Whether a trade union must be registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 to have locus standi to file a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that under Section 3(17) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 'union' means a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, and the respondent did not meet the registration requirements under Sections 9A and 22 of that Act.
The respondent contended that the definition of 'union' does not require registration as a precondition for filing a complaint, and the Industrial Court correctly rejected the objection.
Ratio Decidendi
The definition of 'union' under Section 3(17) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 does not require a trade union to be registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 as a condition for maintaining a complaint under the Act. The Industrial Court's rejection of the employer's objection on locus standi was correct.
Judgment Excerpts
This petition challenges an order passed by the Industrial Court at Thane on a complaint of unfair labour practices under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions And Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (“Act”).
The impugned order allows the Respondent's complaint and sets aside orders of transfer issued to six concerned workmen on 3 April 2017.
The impugned order is challenged only on the ground of want of locus on the part of the Respondent union to represent the case of individual employees of the Petitioner company.
Procedural History
The respondent union filed a complaint under Section 28 read with Item Nos. 3 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act before the Industrial Court at Thane challenging transfer orders dated 3 April 2017. The petitioners raised an objection regarding the union's locus standi. The Industrial Court rejected the objection and allowed the complaint. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Section 3(17), Section 28, Schedule IV Items 3 and 9
- Trade Unions Act, 1926: Section 9A, Section 22
