LexHINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. versus ASHOK VISHNU KATE AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. v. ASHOK VISHNU KATE AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 15, 1995 [G.N. RAY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.) Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions. and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971-Sections 28(1), 30(2)-Jwisdiction of Labour Court~nf air Labour Practice-Complaints filed by workmen apprehending discharge or dismissal even prior to actual passing of orderr-Whether main- tainable before Labour Court-Held, Yes. Interpretation of Statutes-Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971-Social welfare legi.sla- D tion-lnterpretation of-Construction.should be placed on relevant provisions which effectuates the purpose for which such legi.slation is enacted. E F G The predecessor of the appellant - company served chargesheets on Respondent Nos. 1 to 9 for certain alleged misconduct. Respondents instituted complaint before the Labour Court alleging that the company has engaged in commission of unfair labour practices referred to in Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 and that in pursuance of the show-cause notices, i~quirywas being conducted and they apprehended that their services would be terminated. The respondents also filed ap- plications for interim relief u/s 30(2), seeking interim injunction restrain- ing the e1!1ployer - company from continuing the unfair labour practices complained of and from terminating the services of the respondents. The Labour Court passed an ex-pmte injunction restraining the employer - company from terminating the service of the respondents. The employer company contended that complaints were not main- tainable and were premature and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with such complaints as jurisdiction of the Labour Court could not be invoked under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act as long as the proceedings commenced by the employer- company were not terminated by H orders of discharge or dismissal of the respondents. 702 HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. v. AV. KATE 703 The Labour Court upheld the preliminary objection of the employer A - company and held that the complaints were not maintainable at that stage. The respondent workmen filed Writ Petition which was summarily dismissed by the High Court. On appeal, the High Court held that the respondents' complaints were not premature and the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain such complaints filed before the actual orders of B dismissal or termination were passed by the employer. The order passed by the Labour Court was set aside and proceedings were remitted back to the Labour Court for disposal of the complaints on merits. This Special Leave Petition had been filed challenging the decision of the Division of Bench of the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant- company was substituted in place of the petitioner as the original C petitioner had merged with the appellant-company. The appellant - company contended that the High Court was in error in taking the view that the complaints filed by the respondent workmen were maintainable even prior to the passing of the dismissal or discharge D order ; that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction under the Ma~arashtra Act to proceed with such premature complaints; that though the Act deals with prevention of unfair labour practices nowhere in the Act the word 'prevention' was mentioned; that the High Court was in error in taking the view that unfair labour practice is not a penal offence under the Act as Section 48 of the Act made such unfair labour practice penal; that the E Labour Court u/s 30(2) could pass appropriate interim order restraining the employer from enforcing or calling upon the employer to withdraw temporarily the alleged unfair labour practice of dismissal or discharge of employee and it was not as if after discharge or dismissal, such ap- propriate relief could not be granted by the Labour Court; that even F though a chargesheet was served by the employer on the concerned employee, there was still a possibility that it might not actually culminate into any discharge or dismissal and, therefore, complaint against proposed dismissal or dismissal would be premature. The respondent employees submitted that the Maharashtra Act G itself was enacted for prevention of unfair labour practices, as enumerated in the Schedules and such labour practices o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.