Disputes About Promotion And Seniority Fall Within Definition Of 'Industrial Disputes', Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Adjudicate: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal held that disputes related to promotion and seniority fall within the scope of industrial disputes as defined under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, being a forum established by the ID Act, the Labour Court has the rightful jurisdiction to adjudicate on such matters. Brief...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal held that disputes related to promotion and seniority fall within the scope of industrial disputes as defined under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, being a forum established by the ID Act, the Labour Court has the rightful jurisdiction to adjudicate on such matters.
Brief Facts:
The matter pertained to an award passed by the Labour Court, Bhopal. The Labour Court framed two issues. Firstly, whether the issue of promotion falls within the definition of a dispute permissible under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Secondly, whether the issue of promotion is covered under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court answered the questions in positive. Feeling aggrieved, M.P. State Forest Development Corporation approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court (“High Court”).
The Management argued that Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 exclusively deals with four specific circumstances: retrenchment, termination, discharge, and dismissal. As the situation does not align with any of these circumstances outlined in Section 2-A, it contended that the claim before the Labour Court was not maintainable, either individually or through a representative Union.
Examining the language of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Management contended that it defines "industrial dispute" as any dispute or difference between employers and employees, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen themselves, connected with employment, non-employment, terms of employment, or conditions of labour of any person. It argued that since promotion does not constitute a dispute or difference as defined in Section 2(k), the Labour Court was not authorized to adjudicate on the matter as an Industrial Dispute.
Observations by the High Court:
The High Court noted the Labour Court in Paragraph No. 8 held that Item No. 6 of Schedule-II of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 encompasses questions of seniority. Additionally, the High Court held that a plain reading of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 illuminates that it covers disputes or differences between workmen and workmen, with broader implications extending to employers and workmen.
Moreover, the High Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Another versus Krishna Kant & Others [(1995) 5 SCC 75], where the SC held that disputes not explicitly covered by Section 2(k) or Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 could be adjudicated by civil courts or through arbitration. However, disputes pertaining to rights or obligations established under the Industrial Disputes Act, of 1947 must be resolved exclusively by forums established by the ID Act.
Referring to the definition given in Section 2(k), the High Court held that there is no iota of doubt that the matter of promotion and seniority could be adjudicated between the two employees by the Labour Court as it is an industrial dispute under Section 2(k).
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Managing Director M.P. State Forest Development Corporation Vs M.P. State Forest Development Corporation Employees Union
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No. 3830 of 2015
Advocate for the Petitioner: Sanjay Verma
Advocate for the Respondent: Akash Choudhury
Click Here To Read/Download Order