lpa332.06 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 332 OF 2006
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 1010 OF 2003
1. Shivanand Madan Mohan Mishra,
aged about 30 years, r/o Station
Toll, Ward No. 2, Tumsar Road,
District - Bhandara.
2. Ashok Pandurang Budhe,
aged about 37 years, PO: Madgi,
Tahsil - Tumsar, Dist. Bhandara. ... APPELLANTS
Versus
1. M/s. Universal Ferro & Allied
Chemicals Limited, Manek Nagar,
thr. its Managing Director, Tumsar,
District - Bhandara.
2. The Maharashtra Ferro Alloys
Mazdoor Sang, Ekta Bhavan,
Manek Nagar, Tumsar,
District - Bhandara through its
General Secretary.
3. Chemicals & Ferro Alloys Pvt.
Ltd., thr. its Managing Director,
Regd. Office at Liberty Building,
Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Marg,
New Marine Lines, Mumbai - 20. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri A.R. Patil, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri H.N. Verma, Advocate for the respondents.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
ROHIT B. DEO, JJ.
JULY 10, 2017.
::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2017 23:37:23 ::: lpa332.06 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER ROHIT B. DEO, J.) Heard Shri Patil, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri H.N. Verma, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The appellants - workmen are original Complainants in Complaint (ULPN) No. 1024 of 1999, preferred before the Industrial Court, Nagpur, invoking item Nos. 5 & 10 of Schedule IV and item 3 of Schedule III of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as MRTU & PULP Act). The Complaint sought a declaration that the Settlement dated 02.06.1999 between respondent No. 1 - employer and respondent No. 2 - Representative Union be declared as null and void and that the resignations obtained from two appellants - workmen, pursuant to said Settlement, be declared to be illegal.
3. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the Representative Union to the tenability of the Complaint. The Industrial Court refused to frame a preliminary issue, which ::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2017 23:37:23 ::: lpa332.06 3 refusal was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 2500 of 2001. By judgment and order dated 17.01.2001, this Court allowed the petition and directed the Industrial Court to frame a preliminary issue as regards the tenability of the complaint. The tenability of the Complaint was assailed inter alia on the ground that since the Settlement is arrived at with the Representative Union and the Representative Union is before the Court, individual employees are not entitled to assail the Settlement. The contention was that even otherwise in view of the fact that the employer is governed by the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, whether or not the Unfair Labour Practice is under items 2 & 6 of Schedule IV or under any other provision, individual employees are not entitled to approach the Court with a dispute of the nature as is raised in the Complaint. The other objection was that the Complaint was barred by limitation.
4. The learned Industrial Court by judgment and order accepted the preliminary objection and inter alia, holding that the Complaint at the instance of individual employee was not tenable and that even otherwise the Complaint was barred by ::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2017 23:37:23 ::: lpa332.06 4 limitation, dismissed the Complaint. The learned Industrial Court noted that even otherwise, the two Complainants had preferred individual dispute before the Labour Court, Bhandara, challenging the alleged termination. The judgment and order of the Industrial Court has been upheld by the learned Single Judge.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for sometime, we find that the present Letters Patent Appeal is rendered infructuous and it would be futile to dwell upon the issues of law raised by the appellant. We are informed that the individual Complaints preferred by the appellants before the Labour Court, Bhandara, challenging the alleged termination, have been dismissed in 2009 and that the dismissals have attained finality.
6. In this view of the matter, we dispose of the present Letters Patent Appeal as infructuous. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
*GS.
::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2017 23:37:23 :::