Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Viraj Engineering Company, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing engineering components, decided to close its factory on 9 March 2018 and issued closure notices, paying all legal dues to its 14 workers. The Petitioner alleged that after settlement, when it tried to remove plant and machinery, the Respondent No.1 union and its supporters obstructed ingress and egress, leading to a police complaint. The Petitioner then filed a complaint of unfair labour practice under Section 28 read with items 1, 2(a) and (b), and 6 of Schedule III of the MRTU & PULP Act, and sought interim relief under Section 30(2) via Exhibit C2. The Industrial Court at Nashik rejected the interim application by order dated 21 April 2018, holding that the closure was not under unavoidable circumstances (as the firm could continue through other partners) and that the closure was contrary to an assurance given to employees when shifting an oil unit from Nashik to Satara, thus illegal. The High Court, in the present writ petition, examined the impugned order. The Court noted that the Industrial Court's reasoning on unavoidable circumstances was flawed because the MRTU & PULP Act does not require closure to be under unavoidable circumstances; closure is a right of the employer subject to compliance with legal requirements. The assurance regarding the oil unit did not relate to the manufacturing unit where the 14 workers were employed, and there was no evidence that the closure was illegal. The High Court held that the Industrial Court misapplied the tests for interim relief, as the Petitioner had made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience was in its favour, and irreparable loss would be caused if the obstruction continued. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Industrial Court to decide the interim application afresh in accordance with law, without being influenced by its earlier observations.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Interim Relief - Section 30(2) of MRTU & PULP Act - Tests for grant of interim relief - The Industrial Court rejected the employer's interim application on grounds that closure was not under unavoidable circumstances and was contrary to an assurance given to employees - The High Court held that the Industrial Court misapplied the tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, and that the closure was not shown to be illegal - Held that the order rejecting interim relief was unsustainable and set aside (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court erred in rejecting the Petitioner's interim application under Section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act by misapplying the tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 21 April 2018, and directed the Industrial Court to decide the interim application (Exhibit C2) afresh in accordance with law, without being influenced by its earlier observations.
Law Points
- Prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- closure of undertaking
- unfair labour practice
- interim relief under Section 30(2) of MRTU & PULP Act
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (08) 65
WRIT PETITION NO.6099 OF 2018
Mr. Meelan Topkar, for the Petitioner. Mr. Vijayprakash Yadav, for the Respondents.
Viraj Engineering Company
Viraj Engineering Employees Union And Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an order of the Industrial Court rejecting an interim application under Section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act in a complaint of unfair labour practice.
Remedy Sought
The Petitioner sought to set aside the Industrial Court's order and to obtain interim relief restraining the Respondents from obstructing the removal of plant and machinery.
Filing Reason
The Petitioner alleged that after closing its factory and paying all legal dues, the Respondent union and its supporters obstructed ingress and egress of material, persons, and goods, constituting an unfair labour practice.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court at Nashik rejected the Petitioner's interim application by order dated 21 April 2018.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court erred in rejecting the interim application by misapplying the tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss.
Whether the closure of the factory by the Petitioner was illegal or contrary to any assurance given to employees.
Submissions/Arguments
The Petitioner argued that the Industrial Court's reasoning that closure was not under unavoidable circumstances was irrelevant under the MRTU & PULP Act, and that the assurance regarding the oil unit did not pertain to the manufacturing unit.
The Respondents supported the Industrial Court's order, contending that the closure was illegal and contrary to the assurance.
Ratio Decidendi
The Industrial Court misapplied the tests for interim relief under Section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act. Closure of an undertaking is a right of the employer subject to compliance with legal requirements, and the MRTU & PULP Act does not require closure to be under unavoidable circumstances. An assurance given regarding a different unit does not make the closure of another unit illegal. The Petitioner had made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience was in its favour, and irreparable loss would be caused if the obstruction continued.
Judgment Excerpts
The Industrial Court's reasoning that the closure was not under any unavoidable circumstance beyond the control of the employer is not a requirement under the MRTU & PULP Act.
The assurance given by the complainant company to its employees at the time of shifting of its unit producing oil from Nashik to Satara that such shifting would not affect the service conditions of its employees in the manufacturing line does not make the closure of the manufacturing unit illegal.
Procedural History
The Petitioner filed a complaint of unfair labour practice under Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act before the Industrial Court at Nashik, along with an interim application under Section 30(2) (Exhibit C2). The Industrial Court rejected the interim application on 21 April 2018. The Petitioner then filed the present writ petition in the High Court challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act): Section 28, Section 30(2), Schedule III items 1, 2(a), 2(b), 6
