HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M/s. Abbott India Ltd And Others vs All India Abbott Employees Union
Writ Petition (Lodg ) No 4064 of 2024 On 22 March 2024
Hon'ble Judges: Sandeep V. Marne
Case Type: Writ Petition (Lodg )
Final Decision:
Advocates: V.P. Sawant, N.R. Patankar, Prabhakar M. Jadhav, Tanaya Patankar, A.S. Peerzada
Citations:
2024 0 CJ(Bom) 270
ACTS REFERRED:
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Section 28
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Section 26
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Section 7
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Section 5
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Section 4
(A) Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Section 4, Section 4, Section 28, Section 28, Section 5, Section 5, Section 7, Section 7, Section 26, Section 26 - Industrial Court - Procedure for dealing with complaints relating to unfair labour practices - Duties of Industrial Court - Duties of Labour Court - Unfair labour practices With the consent of learned counsels
appearing for parties, the Petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.
2)
Petitioner challenges the Order dated 1 January 2024 passed by the Industrial
Court rejecting Petitioner's Application raising the preliminary issue of
territorial jurisdiction in Complaint (ULP) No.
Judgement Text
1)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsels
appearing for parties, the Petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.
2)
Petitioner challenges the Order dated 1 January 2024 passed by the Industrial
Court rejecting Petitioner's Application raising the preliminary issue of
territorial jurisdiction in Complaint (ULP) No. 192 of 2023 filed by
Respondent-Union to espouse the cause of Mr. Sandeep Kumar Dixit, a Territory
Business Developer posted at Raebareli with regard to alleged change of his
territory configuration. Petitioner claims that since Mr. Sandeep Kumar Dixit
is employed at Raebareli in Uttar Pradesh i.e. outside Maharashtra, the
Industrial Court established under the provisions of the Maharashtra
Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971
(MRTU & PULP Act) does not have jurisdiction to entertain his complaint. It
must be observed here that this is not the first time that the issue of
jurisdiction of Industrial Courts in Maharashtra to decide complaints filed by
the Respondent-Union is raised before this Court. It appears that on the issue
of jurisdiction, various legal battles have ensued between the Petitioner and
Respondent-Union in the past. Before referring to various decisions rendered by
this Court on the issue of jurisdiction, it would be first necessary to narrate
brief factual
