Bombay High Court Imposes 2 Lakh Cost On Adani Electricity For Workers Union, Says Law So Unambiguous Even Reliance Or BSES Didn't Raise Dispute

The Bombay High Court has imposed costs of Rs. 2 lakh on Adani Electricity Limited payable to Mumbai Electric Workers' Union while dismissing a petition in which the company claimed it was no covered under Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (MIR Act). A division bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik observed that it was so "unambiguously clear" that the company was covered under the act that neither did BSES Ltd or Reliance Energy Ltd, that were in charge before Adani ever raise this as an issue. The petition is an effort to tire out members of the Union, the HC noted. " (The) present effort on the part of the petitioning company, as has rightly been contended by Mr. Bukhari (Union' lawyer), is an effort to tire out the members of the Union in their battle with the petitioning company," the court observed. Adani, involved in the generation and supply of electricity, was seeking all orders passed by the industrial tribunal against it after August 2019, be struck down. The dispute between Adani and its employees is with regard to wages and age of retirement, in employment agreements. However, the HC did not comment on the original dispute as the question raised was only with regard to the industrial tribunal jurisdiction to hear the matter. The company claimed that provisions of the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (MIR Act), were not applicable to it since it is engaged in generation and supply of electricity in Mumbai and Mira-Bhayandar. It has a coal-fired thermal power plant at Dahanu in Palghar. Before August 29, 2018, the business was owned and operate by the Bombay Suburban Electric Supply Limited. It was later handled by Reliance Energy Limited and subsequently by Reliance Infrastructure Limited. Adani took over in August 29, 2018. The MIR Act regulates relations of employers and employees, to make provision for settlement of industrial disputes and to provide for certain other purposes. It has succeeded the Maharashtra Industrial Disputes Act, 1938. Senior Advocate AV Bukhari, for the union, argued that the petition was filed belatedly and that the company and its predecessor companies participated in the proceedings before the tribunal without raising any issues. He contended that the petition has been filed "to scuttle all efforts under the provisions of the MIR Act to ensure and/or secure industrial peace and harmony". However, JP Cama, Adani's said they were not covered under the MIR Act therefore the industrial tribunal orders were without jurisdiction. The Act and notifications issued would apply to companies which are involved only in supply of the electricity. The bench said that the company was covered under provisions of the MIR Act and the Industrial tribunal did have the jurisdiction to adjudicate references made to it and the matters must be decided without granting unnecessary adjournments. "we are of the firm view that the provisions of the notifications issued under the MIR Act were so unambiguously clear that at no time in the past either BSES Ltd. or M/s. Reliance Energy Limited or M/s. Reliance Infrastructure Limited ever chose to raise a point in course of proceedings initiated under the MIR Act that the provisions thereof did not apply…" Significantly, the court said that HC's can't stall proceedings before the tribunal on mere asking of an employer and a prima facie case ought to have been made out for the court to exercise its jurisdiction. "..neither the High Courts ought to entertain writ petitions at the instance of employers on the mere asking nor should it pass interim orders stalling the proceedings before the Tribunal for no better reason than that a prima facie case has been set up without being concerned about the balance of convenience, the public interest and a host of other consideration."Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 183Click Here To Read/Download Order

Bombay High Court Imposes 2 Lakh Cost On Adani Electricity For Workers Union, Says Law So Unambiguous Even Reliance Or BSES Didn't Raise Dispute

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags