Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union , v. Tata Memorial Centre, Parel And ORS

wp 12515-2019.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12515 OF 2019 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 9935 OF 2019 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8953 OF 2019 Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union

...Petitioner

vs.

Tata Memorial Centre & Ors.

...Respondents

Mr.Ashok D. Shetty with Swapnil P. Kamble for Petitioner. Mr.Sudhir Talsania, Senior Advocate with Mr.Agnel Carneiro with Bhoomi Upadhyay i/b. Mulla & Mulla & CBC for Respondent. CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.

DATE : 16 DECEMBER 2019 P.C. :

These writ petitions involve the same issue, though on separate complaints and in challenge of separate orders. Writ Petition No.8953/2019 is not on board. It is, however, mentioned, taken on board and called out by consent. The common issue involved concerns the identity of the appropriate Government in the present case so as to decide the jurisdiction of the court.

It is the complainant union's case (Petitioner herein) that the Respondent hospital, which is an autonomous body, is neither owned nor controlled by the Central Government. On the other hand, it is the case of the Respondent that the Respondent establishment is an autonomous body owned or controlled by the Central Government. The Industrial Court, in its impugned order, dismissing the complaint for want of jurisdiction on the 1 / 2

wp 12515-2019.doc ground that the Central Government is the appropriate Government, does not appear to have considered the amended definition of "appropriate Government" under Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is, in the premises, agreed between learned Counsel for both parties that the complaints may be remitted to the Industrial Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law having regard to the amended definition of "appropriate Government".

Accordingly, the impugned orders of the Industrial Court dated 13 February 2019 are quashed and set aside and the respective complaints, namely, Complaint (ULP) Nos.318/2015, 128/2015 and 388/2014, are remitted to the Industrial Court for a fresh hearing in accordance with law and having regard to the observations made in this order. Since the original complaints are restored, the interim orders passed on 2 September 2015, 20 March 2015 and 31 December 2004, respectively, in these complaints shall continue to operate. It is, however, clarified, that the words "prevailing practice" appearing in the interim order passed on 31 December 2014 in Complaint (ULP) No. 388/2014 shall imply "prevailing practice as of today", that is to say, practice involving provision of transport facilities through a contractor.

The writ petitions are disposed of in above terms. (S.C. GUPTE, J.) 2 / 2