LexM.R. PATIL AND ANR. versus MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
·- M.R. PATIL AND ANR. v. MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT AND ANR. APRIL 1, 1997 [M.K. MUKHERJEE AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] Labour Law: Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Sections 12, 30(l)(b) & (2), 39 and 48 (1). Offences--Cognisanc~Validity of-Complaint filed under S. 48 ( 1) by a Union not recognised under the Act-Cognisance taken on such com- plaint--H eld : Was without jurisdiction-Provision of S. 39 in this regard mandatory. Trade unions--Complaint-Locus standi-Complaint filed under S.48 ( 1) by a Union not recognised under the Act-Cognisance taken on such complair.t--Held : Union not recognised under the Act, not elltitled to file such a complaint-Hence, such cognisance was without jurisdiction. A B c D Respondent No. 2 was a Union, not recognised under the E Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Two recognised workers union served notices of demand and intimation of proposed strike by the workers on the management of the State Road Transport Corporation. Respondent No. 2 also gave a similar notice. In view of the threatened strike the Chief F Minister of the State declared an interim relief of a specific sum and asked the Corporation to work out the modalities of its payment. Accordingly, the Corporation held discussions with the recognised unions aud decided upon the mode of payment of the interim relief, pending final settlement. After obtaining approval of the State Government to the same, the Cor· G poration issued a circular and started making payments in terms thereof. Assailing the said circular as being unjust to its members, respon- dent No. 2 filed.a complaint before the Industrial Court under Section 28 (1) of the Act which by an interim order stayed· the operation of the impugned circular. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint H 475 476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) 3 S.C.R. A before the Labour Court under Section 48 (1) of the Act alleging that the two appellants and the Secretary of the Corporation had made payments in terms of the impugned circular. The Labour Court issued a show cause notice to the three accused. After hearing the parties the Labour Court issued process against the two appellants and discharged the Secretary. B c D The appellants then filed applications before the Labour Court for their discharge, which were dismissed. The revision petition before the Industrial Court and the writ petition before the High Court were dis· missed. Hence this appeal. On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the impugned prosecution was void ab initio as respondent No. 2 was not a 'recognised union' within the meaning of the Act and hence the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the alleged offence under the Act . . Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1.1. On a complaint filed in accordance with Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, the Labour Court or the Industrial Court, as the case may be, arrives at a decision that a 11erson has engaged in or is engaging E in any unfair labour practice it may issue a direction in terms of Section 30 (l)(b) and pending final decision grant interim relief in terms of Section 30 (2). Failure on the part of a person, who is bound by such order or direction, to comply with it amounts to an offence for which he is liable to be convicted and sentenced as envisaged under Section 48 (1) by a Labour Court. Cognisance of such offence, besides other offences under the Act, F cannot however be taken by the Labour Court unless a complaint disclosing facts constituting the offence is filed by the person affected thereby or by a recognised Union. The only other mode left open to the Labour Court to take such cognisance is on the basis of a report in writing by the Investigating Officer. [482-F-H] G 1.2. The complaint in the instant case was filed by a Union-and not by an individual claiming to be affected by the alleged non-compliance with the interim direction/order of the Industrial Court. Moreover, the Union is not a recognised Union within the meaning of the Act. The Union has not produced any document-much less a certificate issued under Section 12-to H indicate that it was granted recognition under the Act to entitle it to file a \ M.R. PATIL v. MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT [MUKHEREE, J
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.