SANJIV SHRIRAM BARBADE Vs. KUNBI SAHAKARI BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of the Labour Court and of the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 68/2010 and Revision Application (ULP) No. 141/2010 have been challenged in this petition. The Petitioners contend that they are employees under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act as defined under Section 3(13) of the Act. The Respondent Bank contests this fact and contends that the employees are Managers or Officers and, therefore do not fall within the definition of Section 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act (for short, 'BIR Act'). The Petitioners had approached the Labour Court under Item 1 of Schedule IV during the conduct of the domestic enquiry against them, contending that it was not conducted in Marathi as requested by them and that certain documents which they have sought were not, produced by the employer.

(2.) The Labour Court has held that the Petitioners are not "workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act". It has therefore dismissed the complaint. As regards the findings as to the relevancy of the documents the Labour Court has only observed that it should not stall the proceedings before the enquiry officer in view of various judgments of this Court as well as the Supreme Court. It has not considered the relevancy of the documents sought by the Petitioners. The Labour Court has further considered the question whether the enquiry should be conducted in Marathi as required under the standing orders applicable. The Labour Court has held that since no prejudice would be caused to the employees if the enquiry proceedings are conducted in Marathi and recorded in English. These findings of the Labour Court have been confirmed by the Industrial Court. However, the Industrial Court has held that the Labour Court ought not to have dismissed the complaint on merits it was necessary for it to give an opportunity to the Petitioners to lead evidence to prove that they are employees as defined under the BIR Act.

(3.) In my opinion, both the Courts below have committed serious errors in passing the impugned orders. The Labour Court while dismissing the complaint has considered the definition of workmen as contained in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act although what was relevant was the definition of an employee under Section 3(13) of the BIR Act. On the basis of some prima facie findings the Labour Court has dismissed the complaint. The Industrial Court has rightly restored the complaint and permitted the parties to lead evidence in that behalf.