1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.843 OF 2003 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2497 OF 1998 Mohan R.Mhatre. ...Appellant Vs. M/s.Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. and another. ...Respondents. --- Mr.P.M.Patel, for Appellant. Mr.P.C.Pawaskar, for Respondent nos.1 & 2. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED: 2nd February, 2009. P.C.:- 2 1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 13.6.2003 and 18.6.2003 in Writ petition no.2497 of 1998. That writ petition was filed by the present appellant challenging the order dated 24.4.1998 passed in Complaint (ULP) No.594 of 1997. That complaint was filed by the present appellant making grievance against the order by which his services were transferred from Bombay to Delhi. The order was issued by the employer from Udaipur, Rajasthan where it has its establishment. An objection was raised to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court to entertain the complaint on the ground that the employer does not have its office in Bombay, and therefore, the Court under the provisions of MRTU & PULP Act has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The Industrial Court upheld the objection and has rejected the complaint. The learned Single Judge in writ petition has confirmed the order of the Industrial Court and has dismissed the petition. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing 3 for both the sides. The complaint of the appellant was that unfair labour practice within the meaning of the Act has been committed by the respondent which does not have its establishment admittedly in Bombay. According to the appellant, because the transfer order was served on him in Bombay, the Court in Bombay established under the unfair labour practices Act will have jurisdiction. Both, the learned Single Judge and the Industrial Court, have found that existence of establishment in Maharashtra is necessary for the Court established under the MRTU & PULP Act to have jurisdiction. Perusal of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act,1971 shows that the provisions of the Act applies only in relation to such industry in relation to which the appropriate Government is Government of Maharashtra. Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act reads as under:- “2. Extent, commencement and application:- (3) Except as otherwise hereinafter provided, this Act shall apply to the industries to which the Bombay Industrial Relations Act,1946, Bom. XI of 1947, for the time being 4 applies, and also to any industry as defined in clause (j) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, XIV of 1947, and the State Government in relation to any industrial dispute concerning such industry is the appropriate Government under that Act; Provided that, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that the provisions of this Act shall cease to apply to any such industry from such date as may be specified in the notification; and from that date, the provisions of this Act shall cease to apply to that industry and, thereupon, section 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act,1904, Bom.I of 1944, shall apply to such cess, or as if this Act has been repealed in relation to such industry by a Maharashtra Act.” Perusal of the above quoted provision makes it clear that in order that the provisions of the Act become applicable to the industries to which the industrial dispute relates, the Government of Maharashtra must be the appropriate Government. The reason for incorporation of such provision is obvious. The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act is a State 5 legislation. In our opinion, therefore, whenever a complaint is filed about any unfair labour practice, an averment has to be made in the complaint that the Government of Maharashtra is the appropriate Government in relation to the industry with respect to which the dispute in the complaint is raised. Perusal of the complaint filed in this case shows that there is no averment as to which is the appropriate Government in relation to the industry to which the dispute raised in the complaint relates. In the absence of such basic averments, it appears from the orders impugned in the appeal that the Courts have made inquiry to find it out and have reached the conclusion that the establishment of the employer of the petitioner is in Rajasthan and there is no establishment in Bombay. With the result, the Government of Maharashtra cannot be the appropriate Government in relation to the industry with respect to which the industrial dispute in the complaint relates. In these circumstances, therefore, we find no fault with the ultimate conclusion reached by the Industrial Court and by the learned Single Judge, though for slightly different reasons. Appeal therefore, fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. 6 (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (A.A.SAYED,J.) ---