When a Commercial Officer Falls Outside the MRTU & PULP Act

Automatic Electric Limited terminated the services of Tukaram Mahadev Mejari, who had been promoted to the post of Commercial Officer in the managerial cadre with effect from 01 March 2004. The Company cited wrong dispatch of meters, customer complaints and loss of confidence. The termination was effected as a simpliciter termination under the contractual terms.

Mejari filed a complaint of unfair labour practices under Items 1(a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The litigation passed through multiple rounds before the Labour Court and the Industrial Court. Eventually, the First Labour Court, Thane, by order dated 29 May 2017, directed reinstatement, back wages, continuity of service and consequential benefits. The Industrial Court confirmed that order on 25 July 2017 in Revision Application (ULP) No. 69 of 2017. The employer challenged both orders before the Bombay High Court under Articles 226 and 227.

The Core Issue

The central question was whether Mejari, in his role as Commercial Officer, fell within the definition of 'employee' under Section 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 read with Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. If he did not, the complaint of unfair labour practices was not maintainable and the consequential reliefs could not stand.

The Court's Analysis

Justice Amit Borkar applied the dominant nature of duties test. The Court examined the evidence, admissions and documentary record concerning the actual functions performed by Mejari after his promotion. On that assessment, the dominant nature of his duties was found to be supervisory and administrative, with some managerial colour also appearing from the record.

The Court held that the findings of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court did not reflect a correct application of the legal test. The label of the post and any incidental workman-like activity could not displace the substantive character of the role, which fell outside the protective net of Section 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act.

The Outcome

The writ petition was allowed. The Industrial Court's order dated 25 July 2017 and the Labour Court's order dated 29 May 2017 were quashed and set aside. Complaint (ULP) No. 281 of 2004 stands dismissed. The directions for reinstatement, continuity of service, back wages and consequential benefits were set aside.

Practical Takeaway

For employers and employees alike, the maintainability of an unfair labour practices complaint turns on the actual character of the duties performed, not the designation. Promoted staff handling supervisory or administrative functions may fall outside the MRTU & PULP Act, and that threshold issue should be tested before any relief on the merits is granted.