Shivanand Madan Mohan Mishra & ... vs M/S Universal Ferro & Allied & ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4265 Bom

   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.

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

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

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.