ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD Vs. SHRINIVAS NARAYANRAO MOHARIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner - employer has challenged the order dated 04.01.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Chandrapur, below Exh. 86 in Complaint (ULP) No. 186 of 1993 by which its application for dismissal of Complaint (ULP) has been rejected. M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited - employer is the party respondent in that complaint and the petitioner before this Court is its successor company. The contention of the petitioner was, being "controlled industry" as contemplated under Section 2(ee) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the appropriate Government for it is Central Government and hence provisions of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (hereinafter referred to as MRTU & PULP Act), are not applicable to it. The present respondent had earlier filed a petition vide Writ Petition No. 2558 of 1986 challenging the order on preliminary issue and that writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 12th March 2009. The proceedings in Complaint ULP were expedited.

(2.) Looking to the nature of controversy, with the consent of Shri Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent, the matter has been heard finally by making rule returnable forthwith.

(3.) It is not in dispute that vide Notification dated 08.11.1977, for the purposes of Section 2(a)(i) of the Act, the industry engaged in manufacture and production of cement has been declared as "controlled industry". In this back ground, the petitioner contends that merely because of delegation under Section 39 by Central Government of its power as appropriate Government to State Government, State Government cannot become appropriate Government. He points out that as per provisions of Section 2(3) of MRTU & PULP Act, the provisions thereof apply in relation to any industry, if State Government is appropriate government for it. As for the petitioner industry, the Central Government is appropriate Government, Labour Court has no jurisdiction. He relies upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mazgaon Dock Ltd. vs. Shivbrat Jagroop Mishra & Anr.,2008 3 CLR 755 and the judgment of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in the case of Workmen of Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. vs. Bagalkot Udyog Ltd., 2000 LabIC 3219, to support his contention. He argues that the reliance upon judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Yovan, India Cements Employees Union vs. Management of India Ltd., 1994 LabIC 38, for this purpose by Labour Court is misconceived. He points out that the finding of Labour Court that objection has been raised belatedly is misconceived because stay orders were operating in Writ Petition No. 2558 of 1996 till 12.03.2009.