The Bombay High Court has clarified that strict adherence to the statutory requirement of an approach notice under Section 42(4) of the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1947, is not an absolute bar to maintainability when the employer’s own conduct has obscured the identity of the employer or the fact of termination. This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural rigidity must yield to substantive justice in industrial adjudication, particularly where the workman is economically vulnerable and the employer has failed to maintain statutory records.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Respondent No. 1, a workman employed at Narayan Compound, Bhiwandi, alleged that his services were terminated on or about 5 July 2008. He filed a complaint through his union with the Labour Office on the same date. Subsequently, he initiated Reference (IDA) No. 169 of 2009 against Jainam Silk Mills, asserting that entity as his employer. In its award dated 7 February 2012, the Labour Court held that Giri Textiles, the petitioner, was the actual employer of the workman, albeit on a contractual basis. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 filed Application (BIR) No. 1 of 2014 before the Labour Court, Thane, seeking reinstatement and back wages against Giri Textiles. The petitioner objected on the ground that no approach notice under Section 42(4) of the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act had been issued prior to filing the application.
Key Facts
- The workman was engaged by Giri Textiles under a Contract Labour Agreement dated 24.02.2004
- No appointment letter, wage register, or muster roll was maintained by the petitioner
- The workman was denied access to any formal documentation of employment
- On 05.07.2008, a union complaint was submitted to the Labour Office alleging termination
- Reference (IDA) No. 169 of 2009 was filed against Jainam Silk Mills on 10.08.2009
- The Labour Court’s award dated 07.02.2012 identified Giri Textiles as the employer
- Application (BIR) No. 1 of 2014 was filed on 15.03.2014, nearly six years after the alleged termination
- No approach notice under Section 42(4) MIRA was issued prior to filing
- The petitioner did not produce any evidence of communication of termination to the workman
Procedural History
- 05.07.2008: Union complaint submitted to Labour Office alleging discontinuance of service
- 10.08.2009: Reference (IDA) No. 169 of 2009 filed against Jainam Silk Mills
- 07.02.2012: Labour Court award in Reference (IDA) No. 169 of 2009 held Giri Textiles as employer
- 15.03.2014: Application (BIR) No. 1 of 2014 filed before Labour Court, Thane
- 25.02.2015: Petitioner filed Written Statement raising preliminary objection on non-compliance with Section 42(4)
- 22.12.2021: Labour Court dismissed preliminary objection and allowed proceedings to continue
- 01.01.2022: Appeal (IC) No. 1 of 2022 filed before Industrial Court
- 17.10.2025: Industrial Court dismissed appeal, upholding Labour Court’s order
- 28.12.2025: Writ Petition No. 15779 of 2025 filed before Bombay High Court
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner (Giri Textiles): Argued that the application was not maintainable because no approach notice was issued within three months of termination, as mandated by Section 42(4) read with Rule 53. Contended that the union letter dated 05.07.2008 was not an approach notice under MIRA, as it was addressed to Jainam Silk Mills and invoked the Industrial Disputes Act.
Respondent No. 1 (Workman): Argued that the employer deliberately concealed his employment status by failing to issue appointment letters, maintain records, or communicate termination. Asserted that the union complaint constituted sufficient compliance under the circumstances.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Labour Court’s order dated 22.12.2021 and the Industrial Court’s order dated 17.10.2025, and dismissal of Application (BIR) No. 1 of 2014 on grounds of non-maintainability. The respondent sought continuation of proceedings and adjudication on merits.
The Legal Issue
Whether non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of an approach notice under Section 42(4) of the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1947, renders an application before the Labour Court non-maintainable, where the employer has failed to communicate termination or maintain statutory records, thereby creating ambiguity regarding the identity of the employer and the date of termination.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioner relied on binding precedents including Rajaram Dipoo Khatik v. Shriram Mills & Another, Jayavant Yaswant Raut v. Simplex Mills Limited, and Changunabai Chanoo Palkar v. Khatau Makanji Mills Limited, to argue that issuance of an approach notice is a condition precedent to maintainability. It contended that the union letter dated 05.07.2008 was not an approach notice under MIRA because it was addressed to a different entity (Jainam Silk Mills), invoked the Industrial Disputes Act, and lacked the statutory form. It further argued that the limitation period commenced on 05.07.2008, and the application filed in 2014 was time-barred.
For the Respondent/State
The respondent argued that the employer’s failure to issue appointment letters, maintain muster rolls, or communicate termination rendered strict compliance with Section 42(4) impracticable. He relied on Vasant Shivram Nare v. Maharashtra State Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited and Jayavant Yaswant Raut to contend that where the employer’s conduct creates confusion about employment status, the law must accommodate the workman’s reasonable inability to comply with procedural formalities. He submitted that the union complaint constituted a bona fide grievance and that the burden to prove communication of termination lay with the employer.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a contextual interpretation of Section 42(4) read with Rule 53, rejecting a mechanical application of the statutory requirement. It emphasized that while the legislature intended the approach notice as a mechanism for early settlement, its purpose must be understood in light of industrial realities and the relative power imbalance between employer and workman.
"The Court must first identify what was the industrial dispute, what was known to the workman, what was concealed and whether the employer’s own conduct created confusion."
The Court noted that the petitioner, as the employer, had not discharged its burden to prove that a termination order was communicated to the workman. No acknowledgment, letter, or record was produced to establish that the workman knew the precise date or authority of termination. The Court relied on Vasant Shivram Nare, which held that limitation under Rule 53 commences only upon communication of the order, not its internal date.
The Court further held that the union complaint dated 05.07.2008, though addressed to Jainam Silk Mills and framed under the Industrial Disputes Act, constituted a substantive grievance regarding termination. Where the employer deliberately obscured the employment relationship, the workman’s attempt to assert his rights through any available channel cannot be dismissed as non-compliance.
"If the relationship itself was clouded, the law cannot insist upon precision from the weaker party."
The Court distinguished Rajaram Dipoo Khatik and other precedents cited by the petitioner, noting that those cases involved clear termination orders and unambiguous employer identity. Here, the employer’s failure to maintain statutory records and its reliance on contractual arrangements to evade liability rendered rigid adherence to procedure inequitable.
The Court also rejected the petitioner’s argument that the notice under the Industrial Disputes Act could not be treated as an approach notice under MIRA, holding that substance must prevail over form. The communication, though mislabelled, served the same functional purpose: to alert the employer of a dispute.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed. The orders of the Labour Court dated 22.12.2021 and the Industrial Court dated 17.10.2025 were upheld. The Court held that the objection of non-compliance with Section 42(4) MIRA did not merit acceptance in the facts of the case. Application (BIR) No. 1 of 2014 shall proceed before the Labour Court for adjudication on merits. The Labour Court was directed to dispose of the matter within six months from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Employer’s Conduct Can Waive Procedural Rigidity
- Practitioners must now argue that strict compliance with Section 42(4) MIRA is excused where the employer fails to issue appointment letters, maintain wage records, or communicate termination
- The burden to prove communication of termination lies on the employer when invoking limitation as a defence
- Failure to maintain statutory records under the Contract Labour Act or Shops and Establishments Act may be used to rebut claims of procedural default
Substance Over Form in Industrial Grievances
- Communications addressed to the wrong entity or under a different statute may still qualify as approach notices if they convey a genuine grievance of termination or denial of employment
- Union letters, complaints to Labour Offices, or applications under the Industrial Disputes Act may be treated as functional equivalents if they precede the filing of a BIR application
- Labels such as "approach notice" are not determinative; the substance and intent of the communication must be examined
Limitation Commences Only Upon Communication
- The three-month limitation under Rule 53 begins only when the workman receives actual notice of termination, not from the date the employer claims to have issued the order
- Employers must produce evidence of communication (acknowledgment, receipt, registered post) to rely on limitation
- Absent such proof, courts will presume the workman was unaware and allow proceedings to proceed
