CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2007) 07 BOM CK 0093

J. Sharma, Cantonment Executive Officer and Another vs S.S. Hirurkar and Another

Bombay High Court · Decided on 11 July 2007 · Citation: (2007) 5 ALLMR 549 : (2007) 6 BomCR 316 : (2007) 5 MhLj 896

HON’BLE JUDGES
Nishita Mhatre, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 3343 of 1997

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 333 words

Nishita Mhatre, J.—This petition challenges the interim order passed by the Labour Court granting interim relief to the respondent workman.

2.

When the application for interim relief was heard, the petitioners had raised a fundamental issue as to whether the provisions of the MRTU and PULP Act are applicable to the Pune Cantonment Board. According to the petitioners, the appropriate Government for the Pune Cantonment Board was the Central Government and not the State Government and, therefore, the provisions of the MRTU and PULP Act were not applicable.

3.

The Labour Court refused to deal with this issue regarding its jurisdiction and proceeded to consider the interim application. The Labour Court held that there was no urgency for deciding its jurisdiction and the applicability of the Act as a preliminary issue. The Labour Court referred to certain judgments on the basis of which it concluded that there was no urgency to deal with the preliminary issue raised in respect of jurisdiction.

4.

This procedure adopted by the Labour Court is incorrect. The Labour Court while considering the application for interim relief ought to have first addressed the issue whether the provisions of the MRTU and PULP Act under which it was considering the interim relief application, were applicable to the parties before it. A bare perusal of Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act indicates that the Central Government is the appropriate Government for a Cantonment Board. The provisions of the MRTU and PULP Act apply to industries to which the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act are applicable and to any industry as defined under Sub-section (j) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the State Government is the appropriate Government in relation to any industrial dispute concerning such an industry. Obviously, therefore, the complaint itself is not maintainable and, therefore, no interim relief should have been granted.

5.

Hence, the petition is allowed. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a). No order as to costs.