Allowed

Shri. Besil Barrato and Ors. v. the Indian Hotel Company Employees Union and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Mar 2013CAL/116/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay granted an interim stay on the proceedings of an industrial complaint pending before the Industrial Court, Mumbai. The court held that the applicants had made out a strong prima facie case regarding impleadment in a dispute over contested trade union elections.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay of the proceedings before the Industrial Court (Complaint ULP No. 298 of 2012) granted till 18 April 2013.

Shri. Besil Barrato and Ors. Vs the Indian… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 116 OF 2013 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 92 OF 2013 IN

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 821 OF 2013

¶3

Besil Berrato & Ors. .. Applicants

¶4

V/s

¶5

The Indian Hotel Company Employees' Union & Ors. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. J.P. Cama, Senior Advocate with Ms. Swati Kher, Mr. Suhas Sawant and Mr. Mahesh Londhe i/by Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the applicants.

¶7

Mr. Shailesh Naidu with Mr. Choubal and Mr. Jayesh Desai for respondent no.1.

¶8

Mr. K.M. Naik, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.P. Salkar for respondent nos.2 to 4.

¶9

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, CJ. & ANOOP MOHTA, J.

¶10

DATE : 7 MARCH 2013

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

This is an application for stay of the proceedings [Complaint (ULP) No. 298 of 2012] before the Industrial Court, Mumbai. The appellants have also prayed for stay of the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge pronounced on 26 February 2013 and the judgment and order dated 10 January 2013 of the Industrial Court in the aforesaid complaint.

¶13

abs

¶14

1/4

¶15

The controversy in the appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition against the order of the Industrial Court rejecting the appellants' application for impleadment in the above referred complaint wherein the complainant (respondent no.1 herein) has, inter alia, made the following prayers:

¶16

“(d) To restrain the Respondents from encouraging the members who are not allowing elected office bearers of the Union to discuss, negotiate or to visit the place of the employees and to conduct negotiations with them.

¶17

(e) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the main Complaint, to direct the Respondents to discuss, negotiate and settle all the issues including the issue of wage rise with the legally elected office bearers of the Union in the general body meeting held on April 05, 2012 only.

¶18

(f) That pending the hearing final disposal of the main Complaint, to restrain the Respondents from allowing any individual, group of individuals, outsiders etc. from discussing, negotiating on the issue of wage rise, etc. with the management.

¶19

(h) That pending the hearing final disposal of the main Complaint, to direct the Respondents not to allow any employee, individual, group of individuals who is not legally elected office bearers of the Union to conduct any

¶20

abs

¶21

2/4

¶22

meeting / general meeting of all the employees on July 16, 2012.”

¶23

Mr. Cama, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are the persons who were elected as office bearers of the Union at the Special General Meeting of the Union held on 11 July 2012, by 441 members out of 720 members of the Union.

¶24

It is submitted that since the company has entered into a settlement with the newly elected body, the reliefs prayed for by the complainant – respondent no.1 herein are directly affecting the appellants and more than 400 members of the Union. It is, therefore, submitted that the application for impleadment of the appellants ought to have been allowed by the Industrial Court. In fact, the first order of the Industrial Court did allow the application for impleadment and the writ petition challenging that order was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, but in appeal respondent no.1 was permitted to move the Industrial Court for review and in the second round, the application for impleadment has been rejected by the Industrial Court and that order has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge.

¶25

It is submitted that while deciding the matter, the learned Single Judge has even pronounced upon the legality of the election held on 11 July 2012 which could not have been done when the only controversy before the learned Single Judge was about the right of the appellants as the elected office bearers of the Union to be impleaded in the pending Complaint before the Industrial Court.

¶26

abs

¶27

3/4

¶28

Mr. Naidu, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, submits that since the elections were held on 5 April 2012, further elections could not have been held before April 2013.

¶29

It is however the case of the appellants that the agenda notice for the meeting on 5 April 2012 did not initially include any item for election and it was subsequently added.

¶30

At this stage, we are not inclined to go into merits of any such controversy. In our view, since the appellants have made out a strong prima facie case, we are inclined to grant the interim stay as prayed for. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the proceedings before the Industrial Court being Complaint (ULP) No. 298 of 2012 are stayed till 18 April 2013.

¶31

The appeal shall be listed for hearing on 10 April 2013.

¶32

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶33

(ANOOP MOHTA, J.)

¶34

abs

¶35

4/4

Shri. Besil Barrato and Ors. v. the Indian Hotel Company Employees Union and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Besil Barrato and Ors. v. the Indian Hotel Company Employees Union and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohol Taluka Bahu-Udeshiya Shetkari Sangh, Mohol, through Chairman, Shankarrao Sathe Vs the Secretary, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S.Saumya Builders Pvt.Ltd Vs Union of India and Ors.

Motinagar Co-Operative Housing Society Limited Vs M/S. Zenal Construction Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Ms. Purnima Upadhyay Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Rustomjee Realty Private Limited and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors. and Om Prakash and Company and M/S. Tolaram and Co.

Krishna Harischandra Rao and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.