V T BADE AND ANOTHERVERSUSFERNANDEZ FRANSIS LALZAREMr v. J. Dhage
Legal Reasoning
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 12564 OF 2023V T BADE AND ANOTHERVERSUSFERNANDEZ FRANSIS LALZAREMr. V. J. Dhage, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. S. V. Dankh a/w Ms. Shrutika Deshpande h/f Mr. R. B. Muley, Advocate for the respondent CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.DATE: 11th JUNE, 2024PER COURT :-1.Heard.2.This petition takes exception to the order passed by theIndustrial Court, Aurangabad in Revision Application (ULP) No. 7 of 2023dated 1st July, 2023 whereby the application filed by the petitionersherein for quashment of the proceeding under Section 48(1) of TheMaharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair LabourPractices Act, 1971 (for short ‘MRTU and PULP Act’), stood rejected.3.The facts as they appear from the record indicate that therespondent and others had filed complaint ULP No. 128 of 2013 claimingpermanency from the date of completion of 240 days of continuousservice which consequential benefits. The learned Industrial Court931.wp12564.23.odt1 of 7 granted ad-interim relief by passing order dated 30th September, 2013whereby the respondents in the original complaint were restrained fromchanging service conditions of the complainant therein. This order wasconfirmed by the Industrial Court on 10th March, 2022. The operativepart of the said order reads thus:“ORDER1)The application is hereby partly allowed.2)The ad-interim order dated 30.09.2013 passedearlier by this Court is hereby confirmed subject todirection that the service conditions of the complainantsshould not be changed without following due process oflaw, till the disposal of the present complaint.3)The present application is disposed of in aboveterms.”4.The respondent thereafter filed complaint under Section48(1) of the MRTU and PULP Act alleging the non compliance of theorder. It is averred in the complaint in paragraph 6 that therespondent/petitioner herein have failed to pay the wages of therespondent which amounts to change in his service condition. Therespondent has recorded his verification in tune of complaint underprovisions of Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure on 24th May,2022.5.The learned Labour Court in compliance with the necessary931.wp12564.23.odt2 of 7 procedure contemplated by MRTU and PULP Act and Code of CriminalProcedure had issued show cause notice calling upon the petitioners towhy process should not be issued against them. Petitioners were heardand by passing order dated 21st November, 2021 process was issuedagainst the petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Section48(1) of the MRTU and PULP Act.6.Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioners havepreferred Revision Application (ULP) No. 7 of 2023 before the IndustrialCourt, Aurangabad. The Industrial Court after hearing both sides passedorder dated 1st July, 2023 rejecting the revision application. This order isimpugned in this petition.7.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaintfiled by the respondent under Section 48(1) of the MRTU and PULP Act isvague with no specific allegation that the respondent had worked forparticular period and has not been paid wages for the said period. Healso drew attention of the Court to the response given by the petitionerto the show cause notice issued by the Labour Court and the contentionsraised therein. According to him, a similar order passed by the IndustrialCourt which was carried to this Court in Writ Petition No. 2824 of 2020,wherein this Court has made certain observations with regard their beingno documentary evidence placed before the Industrial Court to indicate931.wp12564.23.odt3 of 7
Legal Reasoning
the dates on which the complainant therein have worked etc. He alsoplaced reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case ofPrithawi Nath Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and others, 2004 AIR SCW4742, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Courtdealing with application for contempt of Court cannot traverse beyondthe order. It cannot test corrections of the order, or give additionaldirections or delete any directions. Thus, sum and substance of hisarguments is that this is not a fit case wherein the process could havebeen issued by the Labour Court against petitioner.8.Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed thesaid submissions by drawing attention of the Court to the observationsmade by the Industrial Court while passing order dated 10th March, 2022,which records the employment of complainant and prima facie case ismade out about unfair labour practices being committed by respondentsin complaint. According to him the defences sought to be taken by thepetitioner could not be considered by the Labour Court at this stage.According to him, once there is a pleading in the complaint supported bythe verification stating that the respondent has not been paid wages,which amounts to change in service condition, case is made out to issueprocess.931.wp12564.23.odt4 of 7 9.There cannot be any dispute with regard to the proposition ofthe law that the Court dealing with an application for contempt of Courtcannot traverse beyond the order. This Court also therefore is required toconsider the order of Industrial Court on its literal meaning to ascertainapparent contempt thereof. It is necessary to take note of the fact thatthe order dated 10th March, 2022 passed by the Industrial Court inComplaint (ULP) No. 128 of 2013 has not been taken exception by thepetitioner before any Court of law. Thus, as of today the said order holdsthe field. Perusal of the operative part of the said order indicates that therespondent i.e. the employer was restrained from changing the serviceconditions of the complainant without due process of law. At this primafacie stage it can be seen that a specific plea has been raised by thecomplainant in the complaint with regard to non payment of wages,which would amount to change in condition of service, if proved.10.The defences sought to be raised by the petitioner inresponse to the show cause notice would not be available for thepetitioner to agitate at this stage, though the same could be taken up bythe petitioner during the trial of Criminal (ULP) No. 23 of 2022, in orderto show that there is no contempt of Court or non compliance of theorder.11.At this stage it needs to be recorded that for the purpose of931.wp12564.23.odt5 of 7 issuance of process the Court is required to satisfy itself prima facieabout the non compliance of the order.The averment in paragraph 6 ofthe complaint of non payment of wages/salary is sufficient to indicate thenon compliance at this stage. No fault therefore can be found with theorder of issuance of process against the petitioners under Section 48(1)of the MRTU and PULP Act, and said order is rightly upheld by IndustrialCourt.12.In view of above discussion, the petitioners have failed tomake out any case for causing interference in the impugned orders.Hence, petition stands dismissed.13.After pronouncement of this order, the learned counsel forthe petitioners seeks stay of this order for a period of six (06) seeks. He,drew attention of the Court to the order passed by this Court dated 11thJanuary, 2024 whereby though Trial Court was permitted to proceed withthe trial but prevented from passing final judgment. Learned counsel forthe respondents opposed the said prayer on the ground that the workersare without wages.14.Since there is order passed by this Court on 11th January,2024 restraining the Trial Court to pass final judgment in the CriminalComplaint (ULP) No 23/2022, this Court finds it appropriate to give931.wp12564.23.odt6 of 7 reasonable time to the petitioners to test this order before Hon’bleSupreme Court. Hence, this order is stayed for a period of four (04)weeks.(R. M. JOSHI, J.)ssp931.wp12564.23.odt7 of 7