DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Vs. SYED SHABIR JANI SYED ALISAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE was issued in this matter on 2nd March 1996. Thereafter Civil Application came to be filed invoking the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 during pendency of the petition. Similar applications were also pending in respect of other Petitions. These applications on the applicability of Section 17-B are being disposed off by this Judgment apart from the merits of the matter. Counsels who had moved applications under Section 17-B in other petitions as also the members of the Bar who were interested in assisting the court as to the applicability of Section 17-B in proceedings initiated under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (in short MRTU & PULP Act) were heard.

(2.) THE issue apart from merits which is being answered is "Whether in a writ petition filed by an employer in respect of an order of reinstatement passed by Authorities under the MRTU and PULP Act and which is pending, can an employee maintain an application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ?"

(3.) THE Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a Central Act whereas the MRTU and PULP Act is a legislation enacted by the Legislature of the State of Maharashtra. Trade Unions, Industrial and Labour disputes, welfare of labour including conditions of work, social security, employment and unemployment are covered by Entries 22, 23 and 24 of concurrent list of the Constitution of India and as such both the Parliament of India and the Legislature of a State would be competent to enact legislation in respect of the said Entries. MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 was enacted by the State Legislature in the year 1972. The scope and ambit of the Act came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Shramik Utkarsh Sabha -vs- Raymond Woollen Mills Limited and others (reported in 1995 Lab.I.C. 1591). The question which arose in that matter was whether a representative union under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 has an exclusive right to represent the employees of the concerned industry in a complaint relating to unfair labour practices under the MRTU and PULP Act other than those specified in Items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV thereof. The Apex Court thereafter considered the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and the MRTU and PULP Act. The Apex Court noted that the MRTU and PULP Act was enacted to provide for the recognition of trade unions for facilitating collective bargaining for certain undertakings; to state their rights and obligations; to confer certain powers on un-recognised unions; and to define and provide for the prevention of unfair labour practices; and constitute courts in this behalf; to provide for; to facilitate collective bargaining; recognition of trade unions; to define unfair labour practices and to provide for prevention of unfair labour practices. The Apex Court also noted that the MRTU & PULP Act takes note of the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and that many of the definitions are stated to be those contained in the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. Thereafter reference is made to Chapter III which deals with the recognition of the Unions. Section 21 provides for representation of employees in respect of items 6 and 12 of Schedule IV only. Though a recognised union as contemplated by the Central Act and a representative of employees entitled to under Section 30 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. It is then observed that considering the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act and Bombay Industrial Relations Act, it can be said that there is commonality in the objects and their provisions and that the Legislature intended that they operate in tandem and complement each other. The scope and provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act, Bombay Industrial Relations Act and Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 thereafter came for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Lever limited -v- Ashok Vishnu Kate and others (reported in (1995) 6 SCC 326). The Apex Court has observed as under:-