M LAXMINARAYAN Vs. S P SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Vice President of General Employees' Union which is a Trade Union registered Under the Trade Unions Act. M/s. Narang Motels (Private) Limited has employed about 350 workmen and majority of them are members of the General Employees' Union. The respondent No. 1 is a Personnel Manager, while respondent No. 2 is a Director of Narang Motels (Private) Limited. The management had issued charge-sheets to 41 workmen who claim to be the members of the Union. The General Employees' Union thereupon filed Complaint (ULP) No. 501 of 1982 against M/s. Narang Motels (Private) Limited and respondent No. 1 who had signed the charge-sheets alleging commission of unfair labour practices under Item 1 (a) and 4(a) and (b) of Schedule II of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The Union also filed an application for interim relief and the Industrial Court passed an ex parte order restraining the management from taking any action on the basis of the alleged ex parte inquiries against the workmen and from discharging or dismissing and of the 41 workmen against whom charge-sheets were issued. According to the petitioner, ex parte order was served upon the respondents on July 8, 1982 through the bailiff as the respondents declined to accept it on July 7, 1982. It is the claim of the petitioner that inspite of the injunction order, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 flouted the same and issued dismissal orders against the workmen by forwarding the letters of dismissal.

(2.) The petitioner thereupon instituted Miscellaneous Criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 72 of 1982 before the Labour Court, Bombay, under Section 48 of the Act complaining that the respondents have violated the interim order passed by the Industrial Court under Sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Act and are, therefore, liable to punishment under Section 48 of the Act. The complaint was filed before the Labour Court on November 12, 1982 and the Labour Court issued process against the respondents. The respondents filed their say raising the objection to the maintainability of the complaint. The respondents claimed that the petitioner is not an employee of the Company and Union of which he is Vice-president is not recognised Union under the provisions of the Act and, therefore, under Section 39 of the Act, the Labour Court cannot take cognizance of the complaint. The objection raised by the respondents prevailed and the Labour Court by order dated October 17, 1984 dismissed the complaint holding that it is not open for the Labour Court to take cognizance of the same as the complaint is instituted by the petitioner, who had no authority to launch prosecution. The impugned order of the Labour Court is under challenge.

(3.) Shri Shetye, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the view taken by the Labour Court about the maintainability of the complaint is entirely misconceived and requires to be set aside. The learned counsel urged that the Labour Court has given a restrictive meaning to the word "person" appearing in Section 39 of the Act and has overlooked that any Union, whether recognised or unrecognised, or any person can institute the complaint under Section 28(1) of the Act in respect of any unfair labour practice. Shri Shetye submits that if the complaint of unfair labour practice can be filed by any unrecognised Union, then there is no rational to construe the expression "person" in Section 39 in restrictive manner, so as to exclude the institution of the complaint by unrecognised Union. I find considerable merit in the submission of the learned counsel.