Dismissed

Maharashtra General Kamgar Mahasangh v. Air Works India Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC28 Jul 2009WP/969/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Bombay dismissed a writ petition challenging the Bombay Industrial Court's dismissal of a complaint. The Court held that the respondent operates non-scheduled air transport services, making the Central Labour Court the appropriate forum, and no interference was warranted.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Maharashtra General Kamgar Mahasangh Vs Air… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 969 OF 2009

¶4

Maharashtra General Kamgar
Mahasangh.. Petitioner.
V/s.

¶5

Air Works India Engineering Pvt.,
Ltd., & Ors.,.. Respondents.

¶6

Mr. N.M.Ganguli, for Petitioner
Mr. S.K.Talsania, Sr.Counsel, a/w. Ms. Rekha Rajgopal,
i/b. Malar Manoharan, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6.

¶7

CORAM: S. J. KATHAWALLA, J.

¶8

DATED: 28^th JULY, 2009.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

1.This Petition is filed by the Petitioner, impugning
the order passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay, dated
21st June, 2008, dismissing the complaint of the Petitioner
on the ground that the Respondent No.1 is in the business
of air transport service and the appropriate authority is
the Central Government and the industrial Court under MRTU
and PULP Act has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the
complaint.

¶11

srj/-

¶12

¶13

2.The learned Advocate for the Petitioner No.1 has

¶14

submitted before this Court that the Industrial Court
failed to appreciate that the Respondent No.1 has not
established that it is in the business of air transport
service.

¶15

3.The learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent
Nos.1 to 6 has drawn my attention to a copy of the license
issued to the Respondent No.1 by the office of Director
General of Civil Aviation, Government of India (page 123
of the complaint), which itself states that it is �PERMIT
TO OPERATE NON-SCHEDULED AIR TRANSPORT SERVICES
(PASSENGER/CARGO/CHARTER)�. The learned Senior Advocate
appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 6 has also drawn my
attention to the decision of the Learned Single Judge of
this Court, reported in 2006 � III CLR 346 wherein this
Court has decided a similar dispute. Paragraph 8 of the
said decision is relevant and reproduced hereunder:-

¶16

Para 8:-

¶17

There is no dispute between the
parties that petitioner is an �Air
transport service�. A copy of the licence
issued by the Director General of Civil
Aviation to the petitioner (bearing permit
no.1/93) was produced on record before the
Labour Court and a copy thereof is also
filed in this Court. The licence
specifically states that the petitioner is
permitted to operate �air transport
service� other than the scheduled air

¶18

srj/-

¶19

¶20

transport service, under Rule 134(3) of the
Aircraft Rules, 1937. Therefore, in
respect of the industry carried out by the
petitioner, the appropriate Government is
the Central Government. The appropriate
Labour Court in respect of the petitioner
industry would therefore be the Central
Labour Court and not the State Labour
Court.�

¶21

4.In view thereof, the impugned order has been passed
after proper application of mind as well as the law on the
subject. No interference is called under the Writ
Jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed
with no order as to costs.

¶22

(S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.)

¶23

srj/-

Maharashtra General Kamgar Mahasangh v. Air Works India Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra General Kamgar Mahasangh v. Air Works India Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shabbir Hasan Mohammad Salim Vs M/S. National Textile Corporation Ltd.

Jaya Hind Sciaky Limited Vs ---------------------------------------------

Kinetic Engineering Limited Vs ---------------------------------------------

Kantaben Babubhai Sathwara and 4 Ors. Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.

M/S. Vikas Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Rupesh Rameshchandra Thakkar Alias Swati Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.