Bombay High Court

The State Of Mah., Dept. Of Sports ... vs Zilla Krida Sankul Karmachari ... on 20 April, 2022

Bench: Manish Pitale

1/29 WP-1762.19+1-J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1762 OF 2019

PETITIONERS :- 1. The State of Maharashtra (Deleted)

2. The Commissioner (Deleted)

3. The District Sports Council (Deleted)

4. The District Sports Council, Through its
Chairman/Secretary, Bhandara, Disttt.
Bhandara.

5. The District Sports Council, Through its
Chairman/Secretary, Chandrapur, Distt.:
Chandrapur.

6. The District Sports Council (Deleted)

7. The District Sports Council, Through its
Chairman/Secretary, Akola, Disttt. Akola.

8. The District Sports Council, Through its
Chairman/Secretary, Amravati, District :
Amravati.

9. The District Sports Council (Deleted)

10.The District Sports Council (Deleted)

11.The District Sports Council, Through its
Chairman/Secretary, Washim, Distt.
Washim.

12.The District Sports Council (Deleted).

...VERSUS...

KHUNTE
2/29 WP-1762.19+1-J

RESPONDENT :- Zilla Krida Sankul Karmachari Sanghatana,
Maharashtra Rajya Registered Trade Union
Registration No.NGP 5292 Having office at
Ravindra Kakade, Gajanan Nagar, Ward
No.1, Wardha, Through its Secretary.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. S. Ghate, counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.A.J.Salway, counsel for the respondent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WRIT PETITION NO. 5617 OF 2019

PETITIONERS :- 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the
Secretary, Department of Sport and Youth
Services, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2. The Commissioner, Department of Sport
and Youth Services, Central Building, Pune.

3. The Chairman, District Sport Council
Division Sport Complex, Through the
Collector, Nagpur.

4. The Secretary, District Sport Council,
Divisional Sport Complex, Through the
District Sport Officer, Nagpur.

...VERSUS...

RESPONDENTS :- 1. Zilla Krida Sankul Karmachari Sanghatana,
(Ori.Petitioner) Maharashtra Rajya (A Registered Trade
Union Reg. No.NGP 5292) having office at
Ravindra Kakade, Gajanan Nagar, Ward
No.1, Wardha.

(Ori.Respdt.No.5 to 38) 2. The Chairman, District Sports Complex
Committee through the Collector, Bhandara

KHUNTE
3/29 WP-1762.19+1-J

3. The Secretary, District Sports Complex
Committee through District Sport Officer,
Bhandara.

4. The Chairman, District Sports Complex
Committee through the Collector,
Chandrapur.

5. The Secretary, District Sports Complex
Committee through District Sport Officer,
Chandrapur.

6. The Chairman, District Sports Complex
Committee through the Collector, Wardha.

7. The Secretary, District Sports Complex
Committee through District Sport Officer,
Wardha.

8. The Chairman, District Sports Complex
Committee through the Collector, Akola.

9. The Secretary, District Sports Complex
Committee through District Sport Officer,
Akola.

10. The Chairman, District Sports Complex
Committee through the Collector, Akola.

11. The Secretary, Divisional Sports Complex
Committee through District Sport Officer,
Amravati.

12. The Chairman, District Sports Complex
Committee through The Collector,
Yavatmal.

13. The Secretary, District Sports Complex
Committee through District Sport Officer,
Yavatmal.

KHUNTE
4/29 WP-1762.19+1-J

14. The Chairman, District Sports Complex
Committee through The Collector,
Buldhana.

15. The Secretary, District Sports Complex
Committee through District Sport Officer,
Buldhana.

16. The Chairman, District Sports Complex
Committee through The Collector,
Washim.

17. The Secretary, District Sports Complex
Committee through District Sport Officer,
Washim.

18. The Chairman, District Sports Complex
Committee through The Collector,
Nandurbar.

19. The Secretary, District Sports Complex
Committee through District Sport Officer,
Nandurbar.

20. The Chairman, District Sports Complex
Committee through The Collector,
Dhule.

21. The Secretary, District Sports Complex
Committee through District Sport Officer,
Dhule.

22. The Chairman, District Sports Complex
Committee through The Collector,
Jalgaon.

23. The Secretary, District Sports Complex
Committee through District Sport Officer,
Jalgaon.

KHUNTE
5/29 WP-1762.19+1-J

24. The Chairman, District Sports Complex
Committee through The Collector,
Ratnagiri.

25. The Chairman, District Sports Complex
Committee through The Collector,
Solapur.

26. The Secretary, District Sports Complex
Committee through District Sport Officer,
Solapur.

27. The Chairman, District Sports Complex
Committee through The Collector,
Nanded.

28. The Secretary, District Sports Complex
Committee through District Sport Officer,
Nanded.

29. The Chairman, District Sports Complex
Committee through The Collector,
Latur.

30. The Secretary, District Sports Complex
Committee through District Sport Officer,
Latur.

31. The Chairman, District Sports Complex
Committee through The Collector,
Sangli.

32. The Secretary, District Sports Complex
Committee through District Sport Officer,
Sangli.

33. The Chairman, District Sports Complex
Committee through The Collector,
Usmanabad.

KHUNTE
6/29 WP-1762.19+1-J

34. The Secretary, District Sports Complex
Committee through District Sport Officer,
Usmanabad.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.K.L.Dharmadhikari, counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.A.J.Salway, counsel for respondent No.1.
Mr.S.S.Ghate, counsel for respondent No.8.
None for respondent Nos.2 to 7 and 9 to 34.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.

DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 25.03.2022.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 20.04.2020.

JUDGMENT

Heard.

2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard these writ

petitions finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the

rival parties. Though respondent Nos.1 to 7 and 9 to 34 are served in

Writ Petition No.5617 of 2019, none appears for them.

3 By these two writ petitions, District Sports Councils of some

Districts in the State of Maharashtra, as also the State of Maharashtra

through the Department of Sports and Youth Affairs, have challenged an

KHUNTE 7/29 WP-1762.19+1-J

order passed by the Industrial Court at Nagpur, whereby their

preliminary objections as regards territorial jurisdiction of the Industrial

Court, have been rejected.

4 Applications were filed before the Industrial Court at Nagpur

raising the preliminary objection of territorial jurisdiction on the ground

that the complaint would be maintainable before the Industrial Court at

Nagpur only as regards employees and the grievance of unfair labour

practice in the Districts of Nagpur and Wardha to which the territorial

jurisdiction of the Industrial Court at Nagpur extends. According to the

petitioners, the complaint filed by the respondent-Zilla Krida Sankul

Karmachari Sanghatana (hereinafter referred to as the "respondent-

Union") raising the grievance of alleged unfair labour practice under

Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade

Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 (hereinafter

referred to as "MRTU & PULP Act") is not maintainable in respect of

District Sports Councils/Committees other than the District Sports

Councils/Committees pertaining to the Districts of Nagpur and Wardha.

5 The respondent-Union filed Complaint (ULP) No.72 of 2014,

before the Industrial Court at Nagpur, wherein the State of Maharashtra

through the Department of Sports and Youth Affairs as also the

KHUNTE 8/29 WP-1762.19+1-J

Commissioner of the Department of Sports and Youth Affairs along with

Chairmen/Secretaries of District Sports Councils/Committees of various

Districts of State of Maharashtra have been arrayed as respondents. It is

alleged by the respondent-Union that under a scheme of the State of

Maharashtra such District Sports Councils/Committees have been

registered as societies in the said districts, wherein the Collector is the

Ex-Officio Chairman and the District Sports Officer is the Ex-Officio

Secretary. It is alleged that employees in these respective District Sports

Councils/Committees are members of the respondent-Union and hence,

the Union is espousing their cause. It is alleged that by not granting

benefits of permanency to the members of the respondent-Union, who

are employees of these District Sports Councils/Committees, the

respondents have indulged in unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9

of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. It is claimed that the employees

have completed more than 240 days of service in a year, in pursuance of

which they are entitled to the benefits of permanency, but they have been

wrongly deprived of the same. On the basis of such pleadings, the

respondent-Union has further claimed that since it has its registered

office at Wardha, the complaint filed before the Industrial Court at

Nagpur, which has territorial jurisdiction over the Districts of Nagpur and

KHUNTE 9/29 WP-1762.19+1-J

Wardha, is maintainable and that the complaint needs to be considered

and decided on merits.

6 In the said complaint, on 15/12/2016, the Industrial Court at

Nagpur passed an order directing the respondents before the Industrial

Court to maintain status quo in respect of service conditions of the

members of the said Union. At that stage also, the preliminary objection

regarding maintainability of the complaint was pending adjudication

before the Industrial Court at Nagpur. Aggrieved by the said order dated

15/12/2016, directing the respondents in the complaint to maintain

status quo, the Chairman of the District Sports Council for the Nagpur

District filed Writ Petition No.4156 of 2017, before this Court. By

judgment and order dated 20/03/2018, this Court set aside the order

and directed that the applications for interim relief filed by the

complainant shall be taken up for consideration and it was also directed

that the Industrial Court can consider the aspect of territorial jurisdiction,

while considering the prayer for interim relief.

7 Thereafter, the rival parties made detailed submissions before

the Industrial Court at Nagpur on the question of maintainability of the

complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. By the impugned

order dated 27/08/2018, the Industrial Court at Nagpur rejected such

KHUNTE 10/29 WP-1762.19+1-J

applications filed by the petitioners raising the preliminary objection of

territorial jurisdiction. It was held that the Industrial Court at Nagpur

had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for the reason that

the respondent-Union was registered in District Wardha and the

petitioners had failed to demonstrate as to what prejudice would be

caused to them if the complaint was entertained at the Industrial Court at

Nagpur and further that the respondents were all ultimately under the

control of the State Government. It was also held that since the MRTU &

PULP Act is a Social Welfare Legislation, it would be advisable to avoid

multiplicity of proceedings. Hence, the complaint filed by the respondent-

Union before the Industrial Court at Nagpur could not be thrown out on

the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

8 Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed the present

writ petitions wherein this Court had issued notice and the contesting

respondent-Union entered appearance through counsel.

9 Shri S.S.Ghate, learned counsel appeared for the petitioners in

Writ Petition No.1762 of 2019 and Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari, learned

Assistant Government Pleader appeared on behalf of the petitioners in

Writ Petition No.5617 of 2019. Both the counsel appearing for the

petitioners submitted that the Industrial Court while passing the

KHUNTE 11/29 WP-1762.19+1-J

impugned order committed a fundamental error in understanding the

nature of grievance raised on behalf of the respondent-Union and the fact

that the members of the Union are employees of respective District Sports

Councils/Committees, which under the scheme of the State are separate

and independent trusts/societies registered in each district in the State of

Maharashtra. It was emphasized by the learned counsel for the

petitioners, that the employees in respect of whom the grievance is

sought to be raised, are necessarily employed by such independent and

distinct trusts in each district, thereby indicating that the allegation of

unfair labour practice of depriving benefits of permanency and invoking

Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, pertained to such

alleged unfair labour practice occurring in each district where such

independent and distinct trusts/societies i.e. District Sports

Councils/Committees are employers. It was emphasized on behalf of the

petitioners that the said fact was ignored by the Industrial Court at

Nagpur while holding that it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the

complaint of the respondent-Union as regards grievances of employees

even beyond the Districts of Nagpur and Wardha i.e. the only two

Districts, over which the Industrial Court at Nagpur has territorial

jurisdiction as per notification issued by the State. The Industrial Court

at Nagpur could not have entertained the complaint in respect of

KHUNTE 12/29 WP-1762.19+1-J

employees employed at District Sports Councils/Committees in Districts

other than Nagpur and Wardha.

10 The learned counsel for the petitioners invited attention of this

Court to the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act, placing emphasis on

Sections 4 and 33, as also Schedules I to IV thereof along with

Regulations 120 to 125 of the Industrial Court Regulations, 1975, framed

thereunder. The petitioners also relied upon notification issued by the

State under section 4 of the MRTU & PULP Act, specifying the territorial

jurisdiction of various Benches of the Industrial Court. It was emphasized

that the Industrial Court at Nagpur, under the said notification, has

jurisdiction to entertain complaints only in respect of unfair labour

practices that occurred in the Districts of Nagpur and Wardha, thereby

indicating that the Industrial Court at Nagpur erred in passing the

impugned order.

11 On the other hand, Shri A. J. Salway, learned counsel appearing

for the respondent-Union, submitted that the impugned order was

justified, for the reason that the respondent-Union was espousing the

cause of its members, who happened to be employees under the said

scheme of the State made applicable in various Districts of the State. It

was submitted that the scheme itself demonstrated that the State had all

KHUNTE 13/29 WP-1762.19+1-J

pervasive control over such employees. The registered office of the

respondent-Union is at Wardha and hence, there is no impediment for the

Industrial Court at Nagpur in entertaining the complaint filed by the

respondent-Union. It was submitted that the objection of territorial

jurisdiction was untenable as no prejudice was demonstrated by the

petitioners while claiming dismissal of the complaint on the ground of

territorial jurisdiction. By inviting attention of this Court to the provisions

of the MRTU & PULP Act, it was submitted that there was no provision

empowering the State to issue notification specifying territorial

jurisdiction of various Benches of the Industrial Court. According to the

learned counsel for the respondent-Union, Section 4 read with section 33

of the MRTU & PULP Act and the Regulations framed thereunder merely

authorized constitution of Benches consisting of one or more

members and there was no power to constitute Benches by specifying

territorial jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the respondent-Union

submitted that the Industrial Court in the impugned order was justified in

relying upon judgment of this Court in the case of Abbott India Ltd & Ors.

v All India Abbott Employees Union & Anr., reported in 2011 III CLR 858,

to hold that since the office of the Union was registered in District

Wardha, it was entitled to file the complaint in the Industrial Court at

Nagpur, which admittedly has territorial jurisdiction over the Districts of

KHUNTE 14/29 WP-1762.19+1-J

Nagpur and Wardha. On this basis, it was submitted that the writ

petitions deserved to be dismissed.

12 Before considering the rival submissions, it would be necessary

to peruse the contents of the complaint filed by the respondent-Union to

examine the nature of grievances sought to be raised and the cause of

action that has propelled the respondent-Union to approach the Industrial

Court at Nagpur. Perusal of the complaint shows that the respondent-

Union claims that its members are employees of District Sports Councils/

Committees established in various Districts of the State of Maharashtra.

The respondent-Union claims that such employees have been illegally

deprived of the benefits of permanency, despite the fact that they had

worked for more than 240 days in a year, wherein their work is perennial

in nature. It is claimed that the employees are very much employed in an

industry in the form of the said District Sports Councils/Committees and

that the respondents in the complaint i.e. the State of Maharashtra, its

departments and each of such District Sports Councils/Committees, have

indulged in unfair labour practices under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of

the MRTU & PULP Act. The respondent-Union has sought direction to the

said respondents in the complaint to extend benefits of permanency to

the members of the Union whose names have been stated in Annexure-A

KHUNTE 15/29 WP-1762.19+1-J

to the complaint by granting them all benefits of continuous service

including monetary benefits. It is specifically stated in the complaint that

the Industrial Court at Nagpur has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the

complaint as the registered office of the Union is within the territorial

jurisdiction of the said Court.

13 While raising the preliminary objection regarding territorial

jurisdiction, the petitioners herein filed applications, stating that the

scheme establishing District Sports Councils/Committees in each District

is meant for encouraging sports activities. The District Sports

Councils/Committees are registered as trusts in each of such Districts,

wherein the Collector of the District is the Ex-Officio Chairman and the

District Sports Officer is the Ex-Officio Secretary and Engineers of the

Public Works Department are the Ex-Officio Office Bearers of such trusts.

It is emphasized that each such trust in the District is registered

independently and functions as an independent entity. It is emphasized

that as per the policy of the State, each such District Level Trust is

independently registered as a Charitable Trust. On this basis, it is

emphasized that employees of such independently registered District

Sports Councils/Committees as trusts are necessarily employees of such

independent entities and if at all there is any unfair labour practice, it has

KHUNTE 16/29 WP-1762.19+1-J

occurred in the respective Districts where such employees are employed.

Merely because they are members of the respondent-Union, which is

registered in District Wardha, would not result in the allegation of unfair

labour practice being concerned with the District of Wardha in order to

facilitate filing of complaint pertaining to the grievance of unfair labour

practice in the Industrial Court at Nagpur. It is specifically contended

that the Industrial Court at Nagpur would have territorial jurisdiction to

entertain the aforesaid complaint only as regards the employees

employed with the District Sports Councils/Committees registered as

trusts in the Districts of Wardha and Nagpur.

14 In order to appreciate such rival contentions, it would be

necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act, the

Regulations framed thereunder and the relevant notification issued under

section 4 of the MRTU & PULP Act.

15 Section 4 of the MRTU & PULP Act provides that the State

Government shall by notification in the official gazette constitute an

Industrial Court and that such Court shall consist of not less than three

members, one of whom shall be the President.




KHUNTE
 17/29                                                                     WP-1762.19+1-J



16            Section 33 of the MRTU & PULP Act provides that the Industrial

Court may make Regulations consistent with the provisions of the MRTU

& PULP Act and the Rules for regulating its procedure. Sub-section (2) of

section 33 of the MRTU & PULP Act specifically states that such

Regulation may provide for formation of Benches consisting of one or

more of its members and the exercise by such Benches of the jurisdiction

and powers vested in them. The Industrial Court Regulations, 1975 have

been framed under section 33 of the MRTU & PULP Act and Chapter VIII

provides for formation of Benches. It consists of Regulations 120 to 125.

The said Regulations read as follows:

120. Subject to the provisions of Section 33 of the Act the President of the Industrial Court may from time to time constitute Benches consisting of one or more members to decide any of the matters required to be decided by the Industrial Court under the Act. A Bench so constituted shall have jurisdiction and powers vested in the Industrial Court under the Act. The President shall assign matters under the Act to the various Benches constituted by him under this regulation. Normally all matters under the Act will be heard by a single member of the Industrial Court unless it is found that it is necessary to constitute a Bench consisting of more than one member.

121. The President may by special or general order constitute a Bench consisting of one or more members to function at any place other than the place at which the Court ordinarily functions within the State of Maharashtra and may assign to such Bench any of the matters required to be decided by the Industrial Court.

122. Where a Bench is constituted the President may at any time transfer any matter or matters from a Bench so constituted to any other Bench of one or more members and the Bench so constituted may proceed with the matter either de novo or at the state at which it was last heard by the Bench from which the matter was transferred.

KHUNTE 18/29 WP-1762.19+1-J

123. The Court may with the consent of the parties act notwithstanding any vacancy owing to the absence of a member if the Bench consists of more than one member and no act, proceeding or determination of such Court shall be called in question by reason of a vacancy or absence.

124. Any Bench of one more members of the Court may refer a question of sufficient importance for consideration by a Full Bench of the Court. The President may constitute a Bench of three or more members on such a reference for disposal of the matter.

125. A Bench constituted under the above Regulations may hold its sittings at such place or places as the President may direct."

17 The State has been issuing notifications under section 4 of the

MRTU & PULP Act, specifying the jurisdiction of Industrial Courts over

local areas and Districts. As per the notification in vogue, the Industrial

Court at Nagpur has jurisdiction over the Districts of Nagpur and Wardha.

This is an undisputed position and the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-Union could not dispute the issuance of such notification and

that complaints pertaining to unfair labour practices were being filed

before such Industrial Courts having specified territorial jurisdiction.

18 The Industrial Court at Nagpur in the present case in the

impugned order, relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Abbott

India Ltd & Ors. v All India Abbott Employees Union & Anr. (supra), to

hold that it had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the

respondent-Union, notwithstanding the objection raised by the

KHUNTE 19/29 WP-1762.19+1-J

petitioners. Therefore, it becomes necessary to appreciate the factual

backdrop in which this Court in the case of Abbott India Ltd & Ors. v All

India Abbott Employees Union & Anr. (supra) made the observations

upon which reliance has been placed in the impugned order.

19 Perusal of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Abbott India

Ltd & Ors. v All India Abbott Employees Union & Anr. (supra) shows that

the complainant was the Union of employees and in the complaint, it was

alleged that unfair labour practices had been committed under Item 5 of

Schedule II and Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.

It was claimed that when the office bearers of the Union were busy

preparing for negotiations on the Charter of Demand, the Company in

question suddenly took several steps without the prior knowledge of the

Union. It was also alleged that while acting in such an unfair manner, the

Company had used coercive tactics and force against the members of the

Union to attend purported workshops at various places, thereby

indulging in unfair labour practices under Item 5 of Schedule II and Items

9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. In the backdrop of

such grievance raised by the Union in the complaint, the Company raised

objection of territorial jurisdiction, claiming that the Industrial Court at

KHUNTE 20/29 WP-1762.19+1-J

Mumbai lacked territorial jurisdiction for the reason that the alleged

unfair labour practices had occurred at places outside Mumbai.

20 It is in the backdrop of such factual scenario that this Court in

the case of Abbott India Ltd & Ors. v All India Abbott Employees Union &

Anr. (supra) held that the unfair labour practice alleged under Item 5 of

Schedule II of the MRTU & PULP Act had occurred at Mumbai, inasmuch

as the Company had refused to bargain collectively in good faith at

Mumbai, particularly when the registered office of the Union was at

Mumbai and the negotiations between the Union and the Company i.e.

the employer had all taken place at Mumbai. While holding so, this Court

in the aforesaid case i.e. Abbott India Ltd & Ors. v All India Abbott

Employees Union & Anr. (supra) distinguished judgment of Division

Bench in the case of Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Abhay Raj

Jain and another, reported in 2008 III CLR 894, emphasizing that the

observations made on situs of employment had to be appreciated in the

backdrop of the allegations made in the complaint in that case. It is

significant that in the case of Abbott India Ltd & Ors. v All India Abbott

Employees Union & Anr. (supra), the complainant-Union had specifically

averred in its pleadings that apart from having its registered office at

Mumbai, the negotiations with the employer had taken place at Mumbai

KHUNTE 21/29 WP-1762.19+1-J

and that a specific allegation of unfair labour practice under Item 5 of

Schedule II of the MRTU & PULP Act was alleged in the facts and

circumstances of the case. The entire thrust in the complaint of the

Union in the aforesaid case was on the refusal of the employer i.e. the

Company having its office at Mumbai, to bargain collectively in good faith

with the recognized Union, as also failure to implement award,

settlement or agreement and indulging in act of force or violence as

unfair labour practices under Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.

21 In the case of Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited v Member,

Industrial Court, Chandrapur, reported in 2009 (2) Mh.L.J. 331, this

Court considered the question of territorial jurisdiction of the Industrial

Court. In the said judgment, this Court considered various judgments on

the question of territorial jurisdiction of the Industrial Court and found

that it would be appropriate to begin consideration of the said aspect by

referring to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case Glaxo

Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v Abhay Raj and another (supra). It was

noted that the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment

applied the test to determine territorial jurisdiction on the basis of

determination of the place where the disputes substantially arose and

situs of employment being a relevant factor to decide the cause of action

KHUNTE 22/29 WP-1762.19+1-J

for initiating any legal proceeding. By referring to judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of Rangavilas Motors

Private Limited v. The Rangavilas Motors Private Limited, reported in AIR

1967 SC 1040, this Court held that there ought to be clear nexus between

the dispute and the territory.

22 In the said case of Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited v Member,

Industrial Court, Chandrapur (supra), this Court found that it is the place

of occurrence of unfair labour practice, which is important to find out the

territorial jurisdiction. It was held that the actual implementation of a

decision at a place where it is intended to have impact resulting in an

unfair labour practice, is a factor relevant for determining territorial

jurisdiction. In the said case also, the employee had invoked Items 9 and

10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act to assert that the Industrial

Court at Chandrapur had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the

complaint, notwithstanding the fact that the employer had its head office

at Ahmadabad in Gujarat. The order of the Industrial Court at

Chandrapur in the said case holding that it had territorial jurisdiction was

upheld by this Court while dismissing the writ petition filed by the

employer.




KHUNTE
 23/29                                                             WP-1762.19+1-J



23        This Court is of the opinion that the facts that are discernible

from the complaint filed by the respondent-Union need to be appreciated

to examine the aspect of territorial jurisdiction. The contents of the

complaint in the present case show that even according to the

respondent-Union, the employees, who are members of the respondent-

Union, are employed with respective District Sports Councils/Committees

that are established for promoting sports culture in the State. These

District Sports Councils/Committees are functioning in respective

Districts, wherein they have engaged the employees for various types of

works. It is stated in the complaint itself that the employees are working

under the direct supervision of the District Sports Officer of each District.

It is also stated that District Sports Officer in each District is the Ex-Officio

Secretary of each such District Sports Council/Committee. It is in the

context of such pleadings that the respondent-Union has invoked Items 6

and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. Item 6 pertains to the

unfair labour practice of employing persons as casuals or temporaries and

continuing them for years with the object of depriving them of the status

and privileges of permanent employees. Item 9 pertains to the unfair

labour practice of failure of implementing award, settlement or

agreement. It is significant that nowhere in the complaint has the

respondent-Union invoked any unfair labour practice under Schedule II

KHUNTE 24/29 WP-1762.19+1-J

of the MRTU & PULP Act, which pertains to unfair labour practices on the

part of employers in the context of collective bargaining by the Union of

employees. It is nowhere pleaded in the complaint that the respondent-

Union entered into negotiations with the respondents in the complaint in

the Districts of Wardha or Nagpur, while claiming that the registered

office of the Union is located in the District of Wardha. It is nowhere

alleged that the employers refused to bargain collectively in good faith

with the respondent-Union at Wardha or Nagpur, to contend that the

Industrial Court at Nagpur, which has territorial jurisdiction over the

Districts of Nagpur and Wardha, would indeed have territorial

jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

24 A careful perusal of the contents of the complaint would show

that the unfair labour practices alleged in the complaint are simpliciter

general unfair labour practices under Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP

Act, pertaining to the alleged unfair labour practice on the part of each

District Sports Council/Committee in depriving its respective employees

of the benefits of permanency. In other words, the unfair labour practice

alleged under Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act concerning each

employee, even as per the complaint, is said to have occurred in the

respective Districts where such persons have been employed with the

KHUNTE 25/29 WP-1762.19+1-J

respective District Sports Councils/Committees. It is clear from the

nature of the grievances raised by the respondent-Union in the complaint

that the unfair labour practice is alleged to have occurred at the place or

situs where each employee has been employed by respective District

Sports Councils/Committees. The execution of orders that may be passed

by the Industrial Court in respect of such grievance of unfair labour

practice would necessarily have to be undertaken at the situs of such

alleged unfair labour practice, pertaining to each such District Sports

Councils/Committees. The contents of the complaint indicate that each

such District Sports Council/Committee is an independent entity as an

employer in each District and therefore, the unfair labour practice alleged

in the context of employees employed with such District Sports Councils/

Committees can be looked into only by the Industrial Court, which has

territorial jurisdiction to entertain such grievance for granting relief to

such employees.

25 The Industrial Court at Nagpur in the impugned order

completely failed to appreciate the stated case of the respondent-Union in

the complaint itself, while considering the preliminary objection of

territorial jurisdiction raised on behalf of the petitioners. In fact, the

petitioners have specifically stated that the Industrial Court at Nagpur

KHUNTE 26/29 WP-1762.19+1-J

would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in respect of

employees of District Sports Councils/Committees of the Districts of

Nagpur and Wardha, but not cases concerning employees of the District

Sports Councils/Committees of other Districts. This Court finds

substance in the said stand taken on behalf of the petitioners. The

Industrial Court at Nagpur in the impugned order failed to appreciate this

aspect of the matter and proceeded to reject the said objection regarding

territorial jurisdiction, only on the ground that the respondent-Union

happened to be registered in the District of Wardha and that employees

of various District Sports Councils/Committees were members of the

Union and further that the petitioners could not show what prejudice

would be caused to them.

26 The emphasis on multiplicity of proceedings also appears to be

misplaced for the reason that when the contents of the very complaint

and the nature of reliefs sought indicates that the Industrial Court at

Nagpur could have entertained the grievance of unfair labour practice

only in respect of District Sports Councils/Committees situated within the

territorial jurisdiction of the said Industrial Court, there was no question

of foisting jurisdiction on the said Industrial Court at Nagpur only

because there would be multiplicity of proceedings.




KHUNTE
 27/29                                                           WP-1762.19+1-J



27        Perusal of the aforementioned provisions of the MRTU & PULP

Act, as also the Regulations framed thereunder and the notification

issued under section 4 thereof, would show that the contention raised on

behalf of the respondent-Union that there was no power under the said

Act to establish Industrial Courts with specific territorial jurisdictions, is

without any substance and it cannot be sustained. In any case, there is

no challenge to the notification issued by the State Government, which is

admittedly in vogue, specifying territorial jurisdiction of various

Industrial Courts in the State of Maharashtra. This Court is of the opinion

that the State has wide powers under section 4 of the MRTU & PULP Act,

including power to issue such notification specifying territorial

jurisdiction of various Industrial Courts in the State. A conjoint reading

of section 4 with section 33 of the MRTU & PULP Act and the Regulations

framed thereunder would show that Industrial Courts have been

established in the State of Maharashtra under the said Act having specific

territorial jurisdictions and complaints pertaining to unfair labour

practices that occur at specific places can be entertained only by such

Industrial Courts that have territorial jurisdiction pertaining to such

places.




KHUNTE
 28/29                                                         WP-1762.19+1-J



28        In the present case, as noted above, the contents of the

complaint itself show that the unfair labour practice in respect of specific

employees is alleged to have occurred at specific places and Districts

where such employees have been working with respective District Sports

Councils/Committees and any grievance or complaint pertaining to such

specific unfair labour practice can be maintained only before the

Industrial Courts that have respective jurisdictions over such places.

Therefore, it is found that the preliminary objection raised on behalf of

the petitioners ought to have been accepted by the Industrial Court.

29 In the light of above, the writ petitions are allowed. The

impugned order passed by the Industrial Court is set aside. Consequently,

it is held that Complaint (ULP) No.72 of 2014, filed by the respondent-

Union is maintainable before the Industrial Court at Nagpur only in