The Bombay High Court has underscored the imperative of factual determination in labour disputes, holding that the Industrial Court erred in leaving open the critical question of whether workers had tendered resignations. The judgment directs payment of settlement benefits with 6% interest to workers who, despite proving unfair labour practices, were denied reinstatement due to procedural ambiguities. This ruling clarifies that employers cannot unilaterally interpret court orders to deny relief, particularly when the Industrial Court fails to conduct necessary factual inquiries under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act).
Case Details
Shantaram G. Choudhary and Ors. v. M/s. Teksons Limited and Anr.
Court
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Date
13 July 2026
Case Number
Writ Petition No. 6448 of 2003
Bench
Sandeep V. Marne, J.
Counsel
Pet: Mr. V.P. Vaidya
Res: Mr. Kiran S. Bapat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dhruv Dandekar, Ms. Avantika Mehndiratta & Ms. Chaya Bhadkamkar i/b. Veritas Legal
Frequently Asked Questions
The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 defines unfair labour practices in Schedule IV. Item 6 pertains to "employer imposing conditions of service which are designed to reflect adversely on the union activities of employees." Item 9 covers "employer refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the recognized union." Item 10 relates to "employer resorting to any form of coercion, intimidation, or victimization of employees." In this case, the Industrial Court held the employer guilty under all three items for preventing employees from resuming duties without an undertaking.
No. The Bombay High Court held that the Industrial Court erred in leaving open the factual dispute of whether employees had resigned. The Court emphasized that if reinstatement is to be granted only to employees who did not resign, the Industrial Court must conduct a factual inquiry to determine this. Failure to do so denies workers the relief they are entitled to, particularly when the employer’s stance is disputed.
Workers can file Miscellaneous Applications under Section 50 of the MRTU & PULP Act for implementation of the order. If the Industrial Court lacks jurisdiction to resolve factual disputes (e.g., whether employees resigned), workers may approach the High Court via writ petition. The High Court may direct payment of settlement benefits with interest, as in this case, where reinstatement was impractical due to prolonged litigation.
Yes. The Bombay High Court awarded 6% simple interest on settlement benefits from the date of filing the petition, recognizing the financial hardship caused by 36 years of litigation. Courts may grant interest as equitable relief where workers succeed in proving unfair labour practices but are denied reinstatement due to procedural ambiguities or employer intransigence.
