Disposed

Malabar Hill Citizen'S Forum and Ors. v. Uday Anant Gurav and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Jun 2008WP/1175/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposes of a writ petition challenging an interlocutory order of the Industrial Court in a ULP matter. The High Court held that the complaint involved a mixed question of law and fact regarding jurisdiction and the lower court decision was not final to dismiss the writ without a further hearing.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of on the grounds that the challenged order was interlocutory and did not conclusively decide jurisdiction or maintainability.

1. Heard Mr.Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the original respondent in complaint (ULP) No.409 of 2005 and petitioner in this petition. I have also heard Mr.Kazi for the respondent-original complainant.

2. With their able assistance I have perused the impugned order below Exhibit C-24 dated 11th April, 2008. An application has been filed copy of which is at Exhibit G by the present petitioners praying that the issues which are framed by the court below include certain issues pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court to entertain and try the complaint and they go to the root of the case. The application was that in order to avoid lengthy trial the issue

respondent-original complainant. Apart from contending that the application is vague and there is no justification in making the same, additionally, it was contended that matter is fixed for recording of evidence and therefore instead of piecemeal adjudication the Court must proceed with the trial.

4. That application was argued and the Court below has observed that when a reply was filed to the interim relief application there was no request made to try any issue as preliminary issue. The interim relief was refused. The issues were framed and it was decided that the trial will proceed. At the same time the Court below was aware of the issues. It has referred to them in the impugned order. However, the apprehension of Mr. Singh is that in paragraph 3 of impugned order the learned Judge has opined that this is not a case where employer-employee relationship is totally denied. The rival cases have been set out and the Court below has observed that matter is ripe for final hearing. When it is fixed for evidence, then, picking up five issues and trying them as preliminary issues would not be proper.

That is how the application is rejected but Mr. Singh’s contention is that this course of action is contrary to the settled principle that the Court exercising jurisdiction under MRTU and PULP Act must have the authority to decide the complaint. The question of its authority goes to the root of the matter. Ultimately, the trial on merits cannot be held and would be a futile exercise if the preliminary issue of jurisdiction is answered in favour of the present petitioner.

5. After this matter was argued for sometime, in my view entering into any larger controversy at this stage would be an academic exercise. The Court below has not decided the issues. The trial is fixed by the Court below. It has given directions with regard to recording of evidence. Ultimately, several issues are framed by the Court below but finally it is for it to determine as to whether it is obliged to render findings on all issues. It may be that the Court below comes to a conclusion that it has no jurisdiction. Then, obviously, the other issues would not survive and any findings thereon would be academic. However, it is for the Court to decide whether it should proceed to record findings on all issues. It is the complainant who will step into the box and will try and make the case in the complaint. The respondents can always cross-examine the

witness/witnesses on all points and it is for them to decide the line of cross-examination. The entire material that would come before the Court below would enable it to render finding on both issues namely jurisdiction and merits. None had disputed that in this case the issue of jurisdiction is a mixed question. In such circumstances, no prejudice is going to be caused by the order passed by the Court below. Clarifying that the impugned order is interlocutory so also that it does not conclude any matters and more so on jurisdiction and maintainability, the present petition is disposed of. Needless to state that it would be open for the respondents to urge that if the Court below comes to conclusion that it has no jurisdiction, then, it should not proceed to render any findings on the merits of the matter. Equally, the complainant can argue otherwise. However, the Court below must decide as to whether it is

Malabar Hill Citizen'S Forum and Ors. v. Uday Anant Gurav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malabar Hill Citizen'S Forum and Ors. v. Uday Anant Gurav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhartiya Kamgar Sena Vs M/S. Eastern International Hotel Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Vidyalankar Institute of Technology Vs Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Union

M/S. Matra Realty Ltd. Vs the Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai

Industrial Development Bank of India Vs O.L.of Bharat Pipes and Fittings Ltd.

Yamuna M. Shinde Vs S.R.A. and Ors. and Ganesh v. Chilveri and Ors.

Laxmicharitable Trust and Anr. Vs Anuradha Parab and 8 Ors.