2002 LAB. I. C. 3468 ::(2002) 3 MahLR 795 ::(2002) 1 CurLR 953 ::(2002) 93 FacLR 591 ::(2002) 2 LabLJ 721 ::(2002) 3 Bom CR 512 ::(2002) 101 FJR 261 ::(2002) 2 Lab LN 515 ::(2002) 2 Mah LJ 744 ::(2002) 7 ServLR 558

Bombay High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): Nishita Mhatre , J

Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (1 of 1972) , Sch.IV Item.9, Sch.IV Item.1, S.7— Termination of service of employee - Complaint challenging it as an unfair labour practice - Has to be tried exclusively by Labour Court as it relates to matter provided in Item 10, Sch. IV - Industrial Court has no jurisdiction to try such a complaint - Complaint filed under Item 9, Sch. IV thus not maintaianble. In the present case, although there may have been a breach of the standing orders applicable to the establishement, the result is that there has been a termination of service of the employee. Consequently, the reliefs which can be claimed is of reinstatement with continuity of service with full back-wages. This is a relief which can be granted by the Labour Court under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act. In fact, under Section 7 of the Act, all complaints relating to unfair labour practices described in Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act are to be tried exclusively by the Labour Court. Thus, since the initial jurisdiction in the substantive complaint filed by the Respondent can be entertained by the Labour Court only, the Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try a complaint in which the only grievance is wrongful termination. A substantive complaint can be entertained only by the Labour Court as it relates to a ma....