M.R. PATIL AND ANR.versusMEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT AND ANR.

                             M.R. PATIL AND ANR.                                    A
                                         v.
                 MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT AND ANR.

                                   APRIL 1, 1997

                  [M.K. MUKHERJEE AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.]                             B

          Labour Law:

          Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair
     Labour Practices Act, 1971: Sections 12, 30(l)(b) & (2), 39 and 48 (1).        c
           Offences--Cognisanc~Validity of-Complaint filed under S. 48 ( 1) by
     a Union not recognised under the Act-Cognisance taken on such com-
     plaint--Held : Was without jurisdiction-Provision of S. 39 in this regard
     mandatory.
                                                                                    D
            Trade unions--Complaint-Locus standi-Complaint filed under S.48
     ( 1) by a Union not recognised under the Act-Cognisance taken on such
     complair.t--Held : Union not recognised under the Act, not elltitled to file
     such a complaint-Hence, such cognisance was without jurisdiction.

           Respondent No. 2 was a Union, not recognised under the E
     Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair

·-   Labour Practices Act, 1971. Two recognised workers union served notices
     of demand and intimation of proposed strike by the workers on the
     management of the State Road Transport Corporation. Respondent No. 2
     also gave a similar notice. In view of the threatened strike the Chief F
     Minister of the State declared an interim relief of a specific sum and asked
     the Corporation to work out the modalities of its payment. Accordingly,
     the Corporation held discussions with the recognised unions aud decided
     upon the mode of payment of the interim relief, pending final settlement.
     After obtaining approval of the State Government to the same, the Cor· G
     poration issued a circular and started making payments in terms thereof.

           Assailing the said circular as being unjust to its members, respon-
     dent No. 2 filed.a complaint before the Industrial Court under Section 28
     (1) of the Act which by an interim order stayed· the operation of the
     impugned circular. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint H
                                         475
    476                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [1997) 3 S.C.R.

A before the Labour Court under Section 48 (1) of the Act alleging that the
    two appellants and the Secretary of the Corporation had made payments
    in terms of the impugned circular. The Labour Court issued a show cause
    notice to the three accused. After hearing the parties the Labour Court
    issued process against the two appellants and discharged the Secretary.

B         The appellants then filed applications before the Labour Court for
    their discharge, which were dismissed. The revision petition before the
    Industrial Court and the writ petition before the High Court were dis·
    missed. Hence this appeal.

c         On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the impugned
    prosecution was void ab initio as respondent No. 2 was not a 'recognised
    union' within the meaning of the Act and hence the Labour Court had no
          .
    jurisdiction to take cognisance of the alleged offence under the Act .

              Allowing the appeal, this Court
D
          HELD: 1.1. On a complaint filed in accordance with Section 28 of the
    Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour
    Practices Act, 1971, the Labour Court or the Industrial Court, as the case
    may be, arrives at a decision that a 11erson has engaged in or is engaging
E   in any unfair labour practice it may issue a direction in terms of Section 30
    (l)(b) and pending final decision grant interim relief in terms of Section
    30 (2). Failure on the part of a person, who is bound by such order or
    direction, to comply with it amounts to an offence for which he is liable to
    be convicted and sentenced as envisaged under Section 48 (1) by a Labour
    Court. Cognisance of such offence, besides other offences under the Act,
F   cannot however be taken by the Labour Court unless a complaint disclosing
    facts constituting the offence is filed by the person affected thereby or by a
    recognised Union. The only other mode left open to the Labour Court to take
    such cognisance is on the basis of a report in writing by the Investigating
    Officer. [482-F-H]

G         1.2. The complaint in the instant case was filed by a Union-and not
    by an individual claiming to be affected by the alleged non-compliance with
    the interim direction/order of the Industrial Court. Moreover, the Union is
    not a recognised Union within the meaning of the Act. The Union has not
    produced any document-much less a certificate issued under Section 12-to
H   indicate that it was granted recognition under the Act to entitle it to file a
\


       M.R. PATIL v. MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT [MUKHEREE, J .] 477

    complaint of facts constituting the offence under Section 48 (I) and, for that   A
    matter, to enable the Labour Court to take cognisance thereupon under
    Section 39. Since the provisions of this Section are mandatory and the
    Labour Court has no jurisdiction to take cognisance of any of the offences
    mentioned in the Act, unless there is a complaint/report in terms thereof,
    the cognisance in the instant case on the complaint of the Union must be
    said to be without jurisdiction. [483-H, 484-A-D]                                B
          Crescent Dyes Chemicals Ltd. v. Ramnaresh T1ipathi, [1993] 2 SCC
    115,Slzaramik Uttarash Sabha v.Raymond Woolle11 Mills Ltd., [1995] 3 SCC
    78 and Akhil Maharashtra Kamgar U11ion v. Warde11 a11d Co. Ltd., (1996) 1
    CLR 212, referred to.
                                                                                     c
          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
    364 of 1997.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 26.4.96 of the Bombay High
    Court in Cr!. W.P. No. 167 of 1995.
                                                                                     D
         Harish N. Salve, Ms. Meenakshi Sakardanade and R.S. Hegde for
    K.R. Nagaraja for the Appellants.

          In-Person for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the court was delivered by                                 E

          M.K. MUKHERJEE, J. Leave granted.

          This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated April
    26, 1996 of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in W.P. (Cr!.) No;
    167 of 1995 Whereby it rejected the \\Tit petition filed by the two appellants   F
    before us. Facts leading to this appeal and relevant for its disposal are as
    under.

          At all material times the appellants no. 1, who is an Officer of the
    Indian Administrative Service, was holding the post of the Vice Chairman- G
    cum-Managing Director of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpora-
    tion ('Corporation' for short) on deputation and appellant No. 2 was the
    Manager of its Nagpur region. On or about April 1, 1992 two recognised
    Workers Unions of the Corporation gave a joint notice terminating their
    earlier settlement with the Corporation and submitted their fresh charter
    of demands. On the failure of the management of the Corporation to attend H
    478                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1997] 3 S.C.R.

A to their demands the Unions served a notice upon the former intimating
    that the workers would go on strike from the midnight of April 12/13, 1993.
    A similar notice was also given by The Maharashtra S.T. Chalak Wahak
    Sanghatna, the respondent No. 2 herein, (hereinafter referred to as the
    'Union'). In view of the threatened strike the Chief Minister of
    Maharashtra intervened into the matter; and on April 9, 1993 declared an
B   interim relief of Rs. 25 crores to the workers and asked the Corporation
    to work out the modalities of its payment. Accordingly, the Corporation
    held discussions with the recognised Unions and decided upon the mode
    of payment of the interim relief, pending final settlement. After obtaining
    approval of the· State Government to the same the corporation issued a
C   circular on June 25, 1993 and started making payments in terms thereof.

          Assailing the above circular on the ground that payment in terms
    thereof would be unjust and more favourable to the workers affiliated to
    the other Unions, the Union filed a complaint before the Industrial Court,
    Amaravati under Section 28 (1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade
D   Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ('Act' for
    short) and, along with it, filed a petition seeking temporary relief. On that
    complaint, which was registered as ULP Case No. 397/93 and the petition,
    the Industrial Court passed the following order on June 29, 1993 :

            "In view of the facts pleaded in the main complaint and this petition

                                                                                    .
E           the effect of the operation of the impugned circular No. 3679 dated
            June 25, 1993 is hereby stayed until July 15, 1993.                     .



                Issue notice to the respondents to file their reply accordingly
            by the said date."
F
        Thereafter, on July 22, 1993, the Union, through its General
  Secretary Shri N.M. Verma, filed a complaint before the Labour Court,
  Akola under Section 48(i) of the Act alleging that even after service of the
  above stay order on the day it was made, that is, on June 29, 1993, the
G Secretary of the State Transport Authority, and the two appellants had
  made payments in terms of the circular and so_ught the following reliefs:·

                "The Hon'ble Labour Court may please declare that the ac-
             cused 1, 2 & 3 have wilfully disobeyed the order of the Hon'ble
             Industrial Court interim order dated 29.6.1993 in the U.L.P. Case
H            No. 397/93.
         M.R. PATIL v. MEMBER, INDUSTRfAL COURT [M.K. MUKHERJEE,J.]         479

            2. The Hon'ble Court may please order against the accused No. 1, A
            2, & 3 to issue process u/s 48 (1) of MRTU and PULP Act and
            award punishment under the Act.

            3. Any suitable order which the Court may deem fit be passed in
            the interest of justice."
                                                                                   B
           On receipt of the complaint, the Labour Court issued a notice
    directing the three accused, including the two appellants, to show cause
    why processes should not be issued against them. In showing cause the
    appellants did not give any specific reply to the allegations made against
    them in the complaint but raised a preliminary objection as to its main- C
    tainability on the ground that without a sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C
    they could not be prosecuted. The other accused however contended that
    he was wrongly arraigned in the proceeding. After hearing the parties the
    Labour Court passed an order on February 11, 1994, whereby it discharged
    the Secretary with a finding that there was nothing on record to show that D
    he was in any way responsible for willful disobedience of the order of the
    Industrial court but, issued processes against the two appellants, after
    rejecting their contention based on 197 Cr. P.C..

          In the mean time, the Industrial Court had, by its order dated
    August 14, 1993, vacated the ex-parte interim stay granted by it on June       E
    29, 1993 and dismissed the petition filed by the Union for temporary relief.

          The appellants then filed two applications before the Labour Court
    praying for their discharge on the grounds, that they were not party to the
    proceedings before the Industrial Court and hence its order dated June 29, p
    1993 was not binding upon them and that the interim stay granted thereby
    had since been vacated. By its order dated December 17, 1994 the Labour
    Court rejected those applications and aggrieved thereby the appellants
•   preferred a revision petition before the Industrial Court (Amaravati
    Bench) under section 44 of the Act which was dismissed. Thereafter they
    moved the High Court in its writ jurisdiction but without success. Hence G
    this appeal.

           To answer the questions raised in this appeal it will be pertinent to
    refer, at the outset, to the preamble of the Act and its material provisions.
    The Act was brought on the statute book :                                     H
    480                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1997] 3 S.C.R.

A            "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 unrecognised unions;
             to provide for declaring certain strikes and lock-outs as illegal
             strikes and lock-outs; to define and provide for the prevention of
             certain unfair labour practices; to constitute courts (as inde-
B
             pendent machinery) for carrying out the purposes of according
             recognition to trade unions for enforcing the provisions relating to
             unfair practices; and to provide for matters connected with the
             purposes aforesaid."

C       'Recognised Union' is defined by sub-section (13) of Section 3 of the
  Act to mean a Union which has been issued a certificate of recognition
  under Chapter III thereof and 'unfair labour practices' by sub-section (16)
  thereof to mean unfair labour practices as defined in Section 26. Chapter
  II specifies Industrial Courts, Labour Courts and Investigating Officers as
D the authorities under the Act and in its various sections details the modes
  of their constitution and appointments, and their duties. Chapter III deals
  with the recognition of Unions and, while Section 11 (1) thereof specifies
  the conditions to be complied with by a Union to gain recognition under
  the Act, Section 12 (3) empowers in Industrial Court to grant recognition
  and issue a certificate of such recognition in the prescribed form. Unfair
E labour practices are dealt with by Chapter VI and Section 26 defined them
  to mean the practices listed in Schedules II, III and IV. Section 27 debars
  employers, Unions and employees from engaging in any unfair labour
  practice and Section 28 of the said Chapter sets out the procedure the
  Industrial Court or the Labour Court, has to follow for dealing with
F complaints relating to unfair labour practices. According to procedure laid
  down in Section 28, any Union or any employee or any employer or any
  Investigating Officer may file a complaint against a person who has
  engaged in or is engaging in any unfair labour practice before the Court
  competent to deal with such complaint either under Section 5, or as the
  case may be, under Section 7. On such complaint the Court may, of its own
G take a decision, which would be in the form of an order; or if it so considers
  necessary, may first cause an investigation into the said complaint to be
  made by the Investigating Officer and direct that a report be submitted by
  him to enable it to take such a decision. Sub-section (7) of the above
  Section forbids the civil or criminal court from quashing the order so made.
H In view of Section 29 the above order of the Court shall be binding on,
     M.R PATIL v. MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.]          481


inter alia, all parties to the complaint and those summoned to appear in        A
Court. Section 30 of the Act formulates the nature of orders the Industrial
Court and Labour Court can pass pursuant to their decisions and so far as
it is relevant for our purposes it reads as under:

        "(l) Where a Court decides that any person named in the com-
        plaint has engaged in, or is engaging in, any unfair labour practice,   B
        it may in its order-

        xxxx                 xxxx                 xxxx               xxxx

        (b) direct all such persons to cease and desist from such unfair C
        labour practice, and take such affirmative action (including pay-
        ment of reasonable compensation to the employee or employees
        affected by the unfair labour practice, or reinstatement of the
        employee or employees with or without backwages, or the payment
        of reasonable compensation), as may in the opinion of the Court
        be necessary to effectuate the policy of the Act;                 D

        (2) In any proceeding before it under this Act, the Court may pass
        such interim order (including any temporary relief or restraining
        order) as it deems just and proper (including directions to the
        person to withdraw temporarily the practice complained of, which E
        is an issue in such proceeding), pending final decision:

            Provided that, the Court may, on an application in that behalf,
        review any interim order passed by it.

      Section 48 (1) of the Act, with which we are primarily concerned in       F
this appeal, provides that any person who fails to comply with any order
of the Court in clause (b) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section
30 of the Act shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment which
may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to five thousand
rupees.
                                                                                G
      Chapter VIII of the Act relates to the powers of Industrial Court and
Labour Court to try offences under the Act and Section 38 specifically
empowers a Labour Court to try offences punishable under the Act within
the limits of whose jurisdiction it is committed. Section 39 relates to
cognizance of the offences committed under the Act and it reads as under: H
    482                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (1997] 3 S.C.R.

A            "No Labour Court shall take cognizance of any offence except on
             a complaint of facts constituting such offence made by the person
             affected thereby or a recognised union or on report in writing by
             the Investigating Officer."

           The powers of and procedure to be followed by the Labour Court
B   for trial of such offences is laid down in Section 40, which is extracted
    below:

            "In respect of offences punishable under this Act, a Labour Court
            shall have all the powers under the Code of Criminal procedure,
c           1898, V of 1898, of a Presidency Magistrate in Greater Bombay
            and a Magistrate of the First Class elsewhere, and in the trial of
            every such offence, shall follow the procedure laid down for in
            Chapter XXII of the said Code of summary trial in which an appeal
            lies; and the rest of the provisions of the Code shall so far as may
            be, apply to such trial."
D
          Section 42 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Sec-
    tion 40, an appeal shall lie to the Industrial Court against an order of
    conviction or acquittal recorded by the Labour Court as also for enhance-
    ment of sentences awarded by the Labour Court. The other section to
    which reference is required to be made is Section 44, which empowers the
E   Industrial Court to exercise superintendence over all Labour Courts.

         From a conspectus of the above provisions of the Act it is manifest
  that if on a complaint filed in accordance with Section 28, the Labour Court
  or the Industrial Court, as the case may be, arrives at a decision that a
F person has engaged in or is engaging in any unfair labour practice it may
                                                                                   -
  issue a direction in terms of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 30 and
  pending final decision grant interim relief in terms of sub-section (2)
  thereof. Failure on the part of a person, who is bound by such order or
  direction, to comply with it amounts to an offence or which he is liable to
  be convicted and sentenced as envisaged under Section 48(1) by a Labour
G Court. Cognizance of such offence, besides other offences under the Act,
  cannot however be taken by the Labour Court unless a complaint disclosing
  facts constituting the offence is filed by the person affected thereby or a
  recognised Union. (emphasis supplied). The only other mode left open to
  the Labour Court to take such cognizance is on the basis of a report in
H writing by the Investigating Officer. Once cognizance of the offence is
       M.R PATIL v. MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT (M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.)        483

  taken on such complaint or report, as the case may be, the Labour Court A ·
  would have to follow the procedure laid down by the Code of Criminal
  Procedure, 1973 (which now replaces the Code of Criminal Procedure,
  1898).

          That brings us to the merits of the appeal. Mr. Salve, the learned
   Counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that the impugned B
   prosecution was void ab initio as the Union was not a 'recognised Union'
   within the meaning of the Act and hence, was not legally competent to file
   the complaint before the Industrial Court under Section 28 of the Act
   which ultimately gave rise to the complaint before the Labour Court under
   Section 48(1). According to Mr. Salve the scheme of the Act and its various C
   provisions clearly envisage that complaints under Section 28 regarding
   unfair labour practices can be made only by re·cognised Unions - or by an
   employee individually if he is solely affected thereby - and since, admitted-
   ly, the Union was not a recognised Union it could not invoke the provisions
   of Section 28. In support of his contention he drew our attention to Section D
   21 of the Act and relied on the judgments of this Court in Crescent Dyes
   Chemicals Ltd. v. Ramnaresh Tripathi, [1993] 2 SCC 115 and Shramik
   Uttarsh Sabha v. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd., [1995) 3 SCC 78. In repelling
   the above contention Shri N.M. Verma, General Secretary of the Union,
   who argued the case himself submitted that the question whether Union
   was recognised or not was not material in view of the limited scope of E
   Section 21 and of the right of 'any Union' as appearing in Section 28 to
   lodge a complaint of unfair labour practice. To buttress his submission Mr.
   Verma drew our attention to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in
   Akltil Maharashtra Kamgar Union v. Warden and Co, Ltd.; (1996) 1 CLR
   212 which has distinguished the judgment of this Court in Sharamik Uttarsh
                                                                                 F
, \Sabha (supra). We need not however delve into this aspect of the matter
' as in our opinion the prosecution launched against the appellants is liable
   to be quashed for the simple reason that the cognizance of the offence
   under Section 48(1) allegedly committed by the appellants was taken by
   the Labour Court in utter breach of Section 39 of the Act.
                                                                               G
         As discussed earlier cognizance of an offence punishable under the
  Act can be taken on 'complaint' of facts constituting such offence only if
  it is made by a person affected thereby or a recognised Union. Admittedly,
  the complaint in the instant case was filed by a Union - and not by an
  individual claiming to be affected by the alleged non-compliance with the H
    484                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (1997) 3 S.C.R.

A interim direction/order of the Industrial Court. Undisputedly again, the
    Union is not a recognised Union within the meaning of the Act. Indeed,
    in the counter affidavit filed by it before this Court, the Union has not
    denied the specific averments made by the appellants in the Special Leave
    Petition, out of which the present appeal arises, that the Union was not a
    recognised Union as per the Act {Paragraph 4(b)} and its only reply
B   thereto was that the allegation was irrelevant. While on this point, it need
    also be mentioned that though the Union has filed a host of documents to
    support its various contentions and repel those of the appellants, it has not
    produced any document - much less a certific;;i$e issued under Section 12
    - to indicate that it was granted recognition under the Act to entitle it to
C   file a complaint of facts constituting the offence under Section 48(1) and,
    for that matter, to enable the Labour Court to take cognizance thereupon
    under Section 39. Since the provisions of this Section are mandatory and
    the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of any of the
    offences mentioned in the Act, unless there is a complaint/report in terms
D   thereof, the cognizance in the instant case on the complaint of the Union
    must be said to be without jurisdiction.

          As the above discussion of ours is sufficient to quash the impugned
    prosecution we need not discuss the other patent infirmities relating to the
    procedure adopted by the Labour Court in dealing with the complaint and
E   to the rejection of the indefensible contention raised on behalf of the
    appellant No. 1 about the maintainability of the prosecution in view of
    Section 197 Cr. P.C.

         On the conclusion as above, we allow this appeal and quash the
    impugned prosecution.
F
    v.s.s.                                                      Appeal allowed.