9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of an "approach notice" under Section 42(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, when issued by an advocate on behalf of an employee. 2. Interpretation of provisions of Section 42(4) and Rule 53 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. 3. Applicability of precedent judgments and their reconsideration. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of an "Approach Notice" by an Advocate: The primary issue in the petition is whether an "approach notice" under Section 42(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, is valid if issued by an advocate on behalf of an employee. The petitioner, employed as a clerk, was terminated orally and sought reinstatement through a notice issued by his advocate. The Industrial Court held that the notice did not meet the requirements of Section 42(4) since it was not issued by the employee personally. The High Court, however, found that the notice met the necessary requirements as it clearly communicated the employee's grievances and sought relief. The Court emphasized that the statute does not prohibit an advocate from issuing such a notice on behalf of the employee. 2. Interpretation of Section 42(4) and Rule 53: Section 42(4) requires an employee or a representative union to approach the employer with a request for change before applying to the Labour Court. Rule 53 outlines the manner in which this approach should be made, allowing the notice to be sent directly by the employee or through a Labour Officer or representative of employees. The High Court interpreted these provisions to mean that the notice could be validly issued by an advocate acting on behalf of the employee, as long as the substance of the notice communicated the employee's grievances effectively. The Court rejected the argument that the notice must be in the exact form prescribed by the rules, stating that the form is procedural and directory, not mandatory. 3. Applicability and Reconsideration of Precedent Judgments: The Court considered previous judgments, including a decision by a learned single Judge in Vasant Ladoo Naik v. Kohinoor Mills Co. Ltd., which held that a notice by an advocate is valid. The respondent argued for reconsideration of this precedent in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in M.R. Patil v. Member, Industrial Court, which dealt with a different statutory provision under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The High Court distinguished the present case from M.R. Patil, noting that Section 42(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act permits an approach notice by an employee or a representative union, and a notice by an advocate is considered as being issued by the employee himself. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the approach notice issued by the advocate on behalf of the employee was valid under Section 42(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The impugned order of the Industrial Court was quashed, and the case was remanded to the Industrial Court for hearing and disposal on merits. The Court emphasized the importance of interpreting statutory provisions in a manner that advances their underlying objectives, promoting industrial harmony and allowing grievances to be addressed effectively. The petition was allowed with no orders as to costs, and the Industrial Court was directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.
|
