In The Management of Prime Data Forms (India) Private Limited Vs The I Additional Labour Court at Chennai and Another, [W.P. No. 20602 of 2018], the Madras High Court has held that the Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate any matter enumerated under the Third Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
CASE SUMMARY
FACTS OF THE CASE:
- The Petitioner is a Private Limited Company involved in the business of printing of computer forms and other paper products like thermal paper etc. For the reasons beyond its control (unprecedented rains and flooding at Chennai in December, 2015), the Company permanently closed down the operations. Immediately before the closure there were 22 employees under the rolls of the Company.
- The 2nd Respondent, who was one of the employees, approached the Labour Officer (Conciliation) and initiated Conciliation proceedings. Other employees also followed suit. An understanding was arrived under the conciliation proceedings to pay an agreed sum before an agreed date.
- Though substantial compliance had reached, and miniscule part non – compliance had not been done; the Conciliation Officer, under haste, considered it as a failed Conciliation and issued a failure report on 03.03.2017.
- The 2nd Respondent, using the failure report as a tool, approached the 1st Respondent viz., the I Additional Labour Court at Chennai by filing I.D. No. 416 of 2017.
- Upon the entire perusal of the Claim Statement filed in I.D. No. 416 of 2017, the 2nd Respondent alleged that he was illegally retrenched and therefore he was constrained to file the I.D before the 1st Respondent.
- A preliminary objection with respect to jurisdiction of the 1st Respondent to entertain the dispute raised by the 2nd Respondent was raised before the 1st Respondent itself. Without enquiring into the limited scope of point of jurisdiction, the Labour Court considered the matters on merits and chose to entertain and further adjudicate the Industrial Dispute.
RELIEF SOUGHT:
Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the I Additional Labour Court at Chennai from further adjudicating the I.D No. 416 of 2017 as 'coram non judice'.
GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE:
- The 1st Respondent’s jurisdiction with respect to subject matter is clearly provided for under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Second and Third Schedules to the Act enumerate various disputes that can arise and be adjudicated under the Act. As per the Act, the Labour Court is empowered to adjudicate only those matters specified under Second Schedule to the Act.
- Going by the Claim Statement, it is the case of the 2nd Respondent that he has been illegally retrenched. ‘Retrenchment of workmen’ is an entry in the Third Schedule to the Act and does not fall under the Second Schedule to the Act. The Act specifically empowers the 1st Respondent viz., the I Additional Labour Court at Chennai to adjudicate upon only those matters falling under the Second Schedule. There are only 6 entries in the Second Schedule and retrenchment is not one amongst them.
-‘Retrenchment of workmen’ has been specifically provided under Entry 10 of the Third Schedule to the Act and any dispute touching upon any entry under the Third Schedule can only be submitted to the Industrial Tribunal established under the Act. The 1st Respondent viz., the I Additional Labour Court at Chennai, by entertaining a dispute touching upon entry 10 of the Third Schedule, has usurped the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal.
-Even when the appropriate government refers an industrial dispute under Section 10, it can only do so before the Industrial Tribunal if the matter refers to a dispute enumerated under the third Schedule. Proviso to Section 10 is the only exception when the appropriate government gets a discretion to refer a dispute enumerated under third schedule to the Labour Court when the dispute is not likely to affect more than 100 persons.
- No such discretion to approach the Labour Court for a matter enumerated under the Third Schedule is available to a workman under Section 2A of the ID Act, 1947. The word ‘or’ in Section 2A cannot be interpreted to mean that the workman can forum shop between Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal to agitate matters enumerated in Second and Third Schedule.
DECISION OF THE COURT:
Writ Petition allowed prohibiting the 1st Respondent from further adjudication in I.D No. 416 of 2017 raised by the 2nd Respondent.
REASONS:
- From a reading of the Second and Third Schedules to the IA Act, 1947, it is clear that any matter relied to the retrenchment of workman and closure of establishments should be adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal and it does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Labour court.
COUNSELS:
For Petitioner: M. Nirmalkumar
For 2nd Respondent: R. Gowtaman
Commenti