Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. By the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14-2-1994, passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur, on the application filed under section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short the MRTU & PULP Act) by the respondent no. 2 praying for an interim relief during pendency of his complaint under section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act, seeking regularisation of his services on the post of Instructor in the faculty of fitter under respondent no. 3, the divisional social welfare officer. By this interim order dated 14th February, 1994, the Industrial Court had directed respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to the complaint, that is present respondent no. 3 the Divisional Social Welfare Officer and the Principal of the Government Industrial Training Institute, Wardha, for the physically handicapped persons not to terminate the services of the complainant during the pendency of his main complaint.

5. Heard Shri Bagale learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Chowda learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents nos. 1, 3 and 4 and Shri Choudhari learned counsel for respondent no. 2. Several contentions have been raised by the counsel for the respective parties. It is, however, not necessary to go through all the questions raised by the learned counsel. One such question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Bagale and also by Shri Chowda learned Assistant Government Pleader relates to very jurisdiction of the Industrial Court in entertaining the application under section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act, dealing with and granting relief in relation to the termination of the services of the complainant. In their submissions there was no actual termination effected as per the complainant till filing of the application under section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act and the relief sought by the applicant under section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act was apparently on the basis of the apprehension of the termination which in turn was based on selection of the petitioner for the post of the fitter and likelihood of issuance of his order of appointment. The termination or apprehended termination whatever it may be in the submission of the learned counsel is a matter governed by provisions of Section 7 of the said Act. The complaints relating to unfair labour practices described in Item I of Schedule IV have to be decided by the Labour Court and not by the Industrial Court. In the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the impugned order since dealt with the termination and restrained concerned authority from terminating the services of the complainant during the pendency of the main complaint, the impugned order has to be held as without jurisdiction and on this short point alone it has to be quashed and set aside. Reliance is placed in this behalf on the two decisions of this Court, one is rendered by the Division Bench reported in Ashok Vishnu Khate and Ors. v. M. R. Bhope, Judge, Labour Court 1992 I CLR 531 and the another one is of single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1314 of 1980 decided on 24th September, 1980 by Deshpande J.

6. In reply Shri Choudhari learned counsel for respondent no. 2 contended that the basic complaint filed by respondent no. 2 was for seeking for regularisation in employment. While claiming such relief which undisputedly was within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court, if some ancillary relief is to be claimed it could be claimed before the Industrial Court itself where the main complaint was pending for disposal and the Industrial Court certainly has got a power to deal with and decide such claim for ancillary relief, though, strictly, it may not come within it's jurisdiction. In the submissions of Shri. Choudhari, having regard to provisions of Section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act, the Industrial Court has jurisdiction to pass such orders as it deems just and proper, pending final decision. The Industrial Court exercising jurisdiction under this provision of Section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act, since in it's discretion has issued the order under challenge, which again is mere interim nature, this Court should not interfere with the same, more so, as the provisions incorporated under section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act indicates that the Industrial Court has got jurisdiction to pass the order of the nature which has been passed by it in the instant matter. Undisputedly when the complaint under section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act was filed before the Industrial Court by respondent no. 2, the complainant was in service of respondent no. 3. As aforesaid his complaint was regarding apprehended termination and, therefore, a relief of direction not to terminate the services was also sought and by filing an application under section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act an interim relief in this behalf was also asked. This is, therefore, a case of the apprehended termination. The question as to whether such type of termination falls in Item I of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, in fact is no more res-integra. The Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Ashok Vishnu Kate v. M. R. Bhope, Judge, Labour Court (cited supra) has held that :

7. Once it is found that the apprehended termination of an employee is covered by Item I of Schedule IV, Section 7 of the MRTU & PULP Act comes into play and the matter has to be taken to the Labour Court for redressal of the employees grievances. In another matter the learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1314 of 1980 MESB v. Indershah Shamrao Atram decided on 24th September, 1980 was dealing with the complaint in relation to Item No. 5 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, wherein a relief to make them permanent was claimed. During the pendency of this complaint the services of the concerned employees were terminated. Immediately, thereafter, the complainants had moved the Industrial Court under section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act for the interim relief. By the application under section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act a direction was sought for temporarily withdrawing order of the termination pending their complaint before the Industrial Court. It is in this background this Court dealt with the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court in the matter of grant of relief under section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act. As regards the termination this Court held that :