Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, employees of the Forest Department, filed Complaint (ULP) 13/2010 before the Labour Court, Yavatmal, alleging unfair labour practices. The Labour Court allowed the complaint on 30-09-2014, directing reinstatement with 50% backwages. The employer challenged this order in Revision (ULP) 12/2014, along with related revisions 13/2014 and 14/2014, before the Industrial Court, Yavatmal. The Industrial Court, by common judgment dated 22-04-2016, partly allowed the revisions, set aside the Labour Court's judgment, and remanded the complaints to the Labour Court for adjudication of maintainability. The Industrial Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Vividh Kamgar Sabha v. Kalyani Steels Ltd. (2001 I CLR 532 SC) to hold that unless the employer-employee relationship is admitted or undisputed, a complaint under Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act is not maintainable. The Industrial Court observed that the Labour Court had not considered this settled law and had decided the disputed relationship. The petitioners challenged the remand order before the Bombay High Court. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the Industrial Court's order was unsustainable. The High Court noted that the Industrial Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, ought to have decided the issue of maintainability itself instead of remanding the matter. The High Court quashed the Industrial Court's order and restored the Labour Court's order dated 30-09-2014. The High Court directed the respondents to comply with the Labour Court's order within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Maintainability of Complaint - Section 28 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) - The Industrial Court set aside the Labour Court's order and remanded the complaints for adjudication of maintainability, holding that the Labour Court had not considered the settled law that the employer-employee relationship must be admitted or undisputed. The High Court quashed the remand order, holding that the Industrial Court ought to have decided the issue itself instead of remanding. (Paras 3-7) B) Industrial Law - Remand - Powers of Industrial Court - The Industrial Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, cannot remand the matter for a fresh decision on maintainability without itself determining the issue. The High Court held that the Industrial Court's order was unsustainable and restored the Labour Court's order. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in remanding the complaints to the Labour Court for adjudication of maintainability, without itself deciding the issue of employer-employee relationship.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Industrial Court's order dated 22-04-2016, and restored the Labour Court's order dated 30-09-2014. The respondents were directed to comply with the Labour Court's order within four weeks.
Law Points
- Maintainability of complaint under Section 28 of MRTU & PULP Act requires admitted or undisputed employer-employee relationship
- Industrial Court cannot remand for adjudication of maintainability without deciding itself
- Labour Court's finding on relationship cannot be set aside without proper reasoning
