AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Naresh H. Patil and S.R. Dongaonkar, JJ.—Heard.
In this Letters Patent Appeal, the order passed by the learned Single Judge (Coram: A.H. Joshi, J.) dated 11.2.2008 in Writ Petition No. 4910 of 2007 is under challenge.
The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants Shri. Shelke submits that once the Industrial Court declared that the Respondent had engaged in unfair labour practices under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ("MRTP & PULP Act"), the further reliefs of declaring the lockout in its entirety as illegal coupled with the relief of payment of back wages right from the year 1997 ought to have been followed. The Industrial Court committed error in not considering and granting these reliefs to the Appellants.
The learned Counsel Shri. T.K. Prabhakaran appearing for the Respondent submitted that before the Industrial Court in the complaint the Appellants prayed for declaring that the Respondent had engaged in unfair labour practices which relief was granted by the Industrial Court. The issues regarding declaration of the entire lockout period as illegal and payment of back wages or salary from the year 1997 were not specifically raised and addressed at the behest of the Appellants. The learned Counsel submits that the complaint which was filed by the Respondent seeking the strike as illegal came to be dismissed against which a writ petition is filed in this Court which is admitted.
We have perused the relevant provisions of the MRTP & PULP Act, 1971 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
In the complaint the Appellants prayed for following substantial reliefs:
(b) Hold and declare that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labour practices as complained above and direct the Respondent to desist from the same.
(c). Direct the Respondent to allow the complainant to join the duties with continuity and arrears of wages from 14.3.1997.
While considering these issues the Industrial Court observed that the lockout for the first five days was illegal and came out with further finding that the lockout for the rest of the duration was legal. The Industrial Court finally granted relief in favour of the Appellants by declaring that Respondent had engaged in unfair labour practices under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act.
In view of the declaration, the learned Counsel Shri Prabhakaran submits that the Appellants had even filed execution petition in the Labour Court u/s 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition observed that the findings recorded in last unnumbered sub-para 22 of the order of the Industrial Court were not shown to be contrary to the mandatory provisions of law or binding precedent.
We do not find that the order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous and is required to be interfered in this letters patent appeal.
The Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed.