Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

( CORAM : Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.) DATE : 02/11/2018 PER COURT :

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 20/07/2018 by which Revision (ULP) no.43/2016 filed by the respondent/Aurangabad Mathadi and Unprotected Labour Board, was allowed, the judgment of the Labour Court was quashed and set aside and the proceedings were remitted to be considered afresh.
2. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner/original complainant before the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No.29/2014 and the learned Advocate for the Board.

With their assistance, I have gone through the 8 grounds formulated in the memo of the petition and the paper book.

3. It is obvious from the judgment of the Labour Court dated khs/NOV.2018/12301-d 27/07/2016 that the Labour Court, as observed in paragraph No.5, held that as the Mathadi Board did not enter it's written statement, there is no requirement for framing of issues. Since the oral evidence and certain documents produced by the petitioner were considered, the Labour Court allowed the complaint by declaring that the Mathadi Board has committed a ULP under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act. The Industrial Court has set aside the said judgment purely on the count that the Board was unrepresented and it was an ex-parte judgment. By imposing costs of Rs.3,000/-, the proceedings were remitted to the Labour Court.

Secondly, the Aurangabad Mathadi and Unprotected Labour Board is constituted under the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969. The table prescribed under Section 1 of the said Act indicates the industries to which the said act would be applicable. Such industries would be defined as Scheduled Industries and an unprotected workman working on loading and unloading assignments in that scheduled industry engaged by a particular factory/industry, would be covered by the said Act. Whether the Board constituted u/s 6 of the said Act would amount to an industry u/s 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will first have to be considered without which the Labour Court would not have any jurisdiction to entertain such a ULP complaint u/s 28 of the 1971 Act.