Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a challenge to an interim order passed by the Industrial Court on 31 July 2017 in a complaint of unfair labour practices under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The dispute involved Grindwell Norton Ltd., a company operating a factory at Mora, and three trade unions representing its workmen. An earlier long-term settlement dated 30 August 2011 expired in 2014, and charter of demands were submitted. Conciliation proceedings resulted in Reference (IT) No. 48 of 2015 pending before the Industrial Tribunal. Meanwhile, one union filed a complaint alleging unfair labour practices under Items 1(c), 2(a), and 2(b) of Schedule II of the MRTU & PULP Act, asserting that the company was interfering with union organizing and showing partiality to other unions. The company and two other unions reached an amicable settlement on 12 July 2017, covering 102 out of 163 workers, which provided an average wage increase of Rs. 5,730 per month in return for enhanced productivity. The complainant union then sought and obtained a stay of that settlement and an order directing the company to pay an interim wage rise of Rs. 3,000 per month to all workmen. Aggrieved, the company filed Writ Petition No. 9199 of 2017, and the other two unions filed Writ Petition No. 9293 of 2017, both praying for setting aside the Industrial Court's order. The company argued that the Industrial Court exceeded its jurisdiction, granted relief not prayed for, and ignored settled law requiring exceptional circumstances to stay a lawful settlement. The complainant union contended that there had been no wage revision since 2014, the company had discriminated against it and obstructed collective bargaining, and the settlement was not based on any scientific study and was imposed under pressure. The High Court of Bombay heard both petitions together and disposed of them by a common order pronounced on 17 July 2018. The judgment text provided is truncated and does not include the final operative direction; accordingly, the ultimate decision is not available in the record.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practices - Scope of Interim Relief Under MRTU & PULP Act - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Schedule II Items 1(c), 2(a), 2(b) - The Industrial Court stayed a settlement between the employer and majority workers and directed interim wage increase of Rs.3,000 per month pending complaint alleging unfair labour practices. The High Court considered whether the interim order exceeded jurisdiction or was justified, and heard arguments on both sides concerning the allegations of undermining union organization, showing partiality, and granting wage increases at crucial periods. (Paras 5-11)
B) Labour Law - Binding Nature of Settlements - Challenge to Fairness of Settlement - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The employer contended that a settlement accepted by majority workers cannot be lightly interfered with and challenged only on specific grounds of unfairness, relying on Jaihind Roadways v. Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi Transport & General Kamgar Union (2005) 8 SCC 51 and State of Uttranchal v. Jagpal Singh Tyagi (2005) 8 SCC 49. The Court considered these principles in the context of the stay on the settlement. (Paras 9, 11)
C) Labour Law - Collective Bargaining - Discriminatory Treatment of Unions - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The respondent union alleged that the employer discriminated against it, prevented effective bargaining, and forced a settlement with other unions without scientific study and under pressure. The Court examined these allegations while considering the mandatory nature of the impugned interim order. (Paras 10-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in staying the implementation of a settlement dated 12-07-2017 between the employer and majority workers and directing payment of interim wage increase of Rs.3,000 per month to all workers, pending a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act alleging unfair labour practices.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practices under Schedule II of MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Interim relief in MRTU & PULP complaints
- Binding nature of settlements under Industrial Disputes Act
- Scope of Industrial Court's power to grant stay of settlement
- Discriminatory treatment of unions
- Collective bargaining rights
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (07) 62
Writ Petition No. 9199 of 2017 and Writ Petition No. 9293 of 2017
Mr. Sudhir Talsania, Senior Advocate with Ms. M. D'Souza i/b Mr. Avinash H. Fatangare; Mr. Avinash Jalisatgi i/b Mr. Amol B. Desai; Mr. Sanjay Singhvi, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. K. Prasanna Kumar
Grindwell Norton Ltd. (WP No. 9199 of 2017), Shramik Sena & Anr. (WP No. 9293 of 2017)
The Transport and General Kamgar Union & Ors. (WP No. 9199 of 2017), Grindwell Norton Ltd. & Anr. (WP No. 9293 of 2017)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging an interim order of the Industrial Court that stayed a settlement between the employer and majority workers and directed interim wage increase pending a complaint of unfair labour practices under the MRTU & PULP Act.
Remedy Sought
The employer sought quashing of the Industrial Court order staying the settlement and directing interim wage increase; the other two unions sought increase in the interim wage amount.
Filing Reason
Aggrieved by the Industrial Court's order dated 31-07-2017 staying implementation of settlement dated 12-07-2017 and directing payment of Rs.3,000 per month as interim wage increase.
Previous Decisions
Industrial Court, Mumbai, order dated 31-07-2017 passed in complaint (ULP) No. XX (exact number not specified); earlier High Court order dated 25-07-2017 in WP No.646 of 2016 regarding Reference (IT) 48 of 2015.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court exceeded its jurisdiction in staying a settlement accepted by majority workers pending a complaint of unfair labour practice?
Whether an order of interim wage increase of Rs.3,000 per month to all workers was justified without specific prayer and without hearing the employer?
Whether the settlement dated 12-07-2017 was vitiated by unfair labour practices as alleged under Items 1(c), 2(a), 2(b) of Schedule II of MRTU & PULP Act?
Whether the Industrial Court can restrain implementation of a settlement during pendency of a complaint under MRTU & PULP Act, especially when a reference is pending before Industrial Tribunal?
Submissions/Arguments
Employer argued that the Industrial Court order was without jurisdiction, no interim relief of Rs.3,000 was sought, the settlement was validly signed by majority workers, and it could not be stayed without exceptional circumstances, citing Jaihind Roadways and State of Uttranchal.
Union No.1 contended that there was no wage revision since 2014, the employer discriminated against it, prevented effective bargaining, and a settlement was signed without scientific study and under pressure.
Unions 2 and 3 sought higher interim wage increase, arguing that Rs.3,000 was insufficient compared to the settlement benefits they had agreed upon.
Judgment Excerpts
To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to organise, form, join or assist a trade union and to engage in concerned activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, that is to say – (c) granting wage increase to employees at crucial periods of union organisation, with a view to undermining the efforts of the union at organisation.
There could be no order contrary to such settlement unless exceptional circumstances exist.
The Industrial Court had also incorrectly held that the company avoided negotiations with respondent no.1-union when documents placed on record clearly establishes that respondent no.1 had meeting with the petitioner-company on 5th August, 2015.
the settlement was entered into without any scientific study.
Procedural History
A Long Term Settlement dated 30-08-2011 between the employer and unions (including respondent nos.2, 3 and Raigad Shramik Sangathana) expired on 31-08-2014. Union No.1 submitted Charter of Demands on 18-07-2014. Conciliation proceedings led to Reference (IT) No.48 of 2015 before Industrial Tribunal. Employer challenged the reference, and High Court on 25-07-2017 directed that productivity issue be adjudicated by Industrial Tribunal. Meanwhile, Union No.1 filed complaint under MRTU & PULP Act alleging unfair labour practices. Application for interim stay was filed. Employer and Unions 2 & 3 entered into a settlement on 12-07-2017 covering 102 of 163 employees. On 27-07-2017, Union No.1 sought stay of settlement. Industrial Court passed impugned order on 31-07-2017 staying settlement and directing interim wage increase of Rs.3,000 per month. Aggrieved by this order, employer filed WP No.9199 of 2017 and Unions 2 & 3 filed WP No.9293 of 2017. The High Court issued Rule and heard both petitions finally, but final order is not provided in the available text.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Schedule II, Items 1(c), 2(a), 2(b)
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
