F REHMAN Vs. BABSON AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This otherwise a simple revision application under S. 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") raises an interesting and important point for consideration whether "any union" unconnected with the establishment of a certain industry can file a complaint of unfair labour practice against an employer under the provisions of the Act.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to this revision application are that one F. Rehman claiming to be the President of All India Labour Union, 45/2nd floor, Air-conditioned Market, Tardeo, Bombay-400 034 (hereinafter referred to as "the applicant") filed a complaint of unfair labour practice in the Court of the learned Judge presiding over the Ninth Labour Court, Bombay, being complaint (ULP) No. 99 of 1978, against M/s. Babson and Company, having their office at Hirji Govindji Estate, Thackersey Jivraj Road, Sewree, Bombay-400 015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondents'). The learned Labour Judge of the Ninth Court by his order dated 23rd April, 1981 granted relief directing the respondents to reinstate four watchmen concerned in the said complaint with consequential directions. Being aggrieved by the said order the respondents went in revision to the Industrial Court, in Revision Application (ULP) No. 26 of 1981 which was heard by my learned brother B. V. Chavan and he came to a conclusion that the learned Judge of the Ninth Labour Court had acted in a highly irregular manner in exercise of his jurisdiction inasmuch as an important point which was made by the respondents before him that the complaint was not maintainable as it was filed by a union unconnected with the establishments of the respondents, was not decided by him. He, therefore, allowed the revision application and set aside the order dated 23-4-1981 passed by the learned Judge of the Ninth Labour Court and remanded the matter back for fresh trial according to law and further directed that the matter shall be heard by any Labour Judge other than the learned Judge of the Ninth Labour Court. That is how the matter was then placed before the learned Judge of the Second Labour Court, Bombay, who heard the parties and came to the conclusion that the complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint and as such the complaint was not maintainable. He, therefore, by his order dated 11-12-1981 dismissed the complaint with no order as to costs.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the said order the applicant came to this Court in revision.