Supreme Court - Labour and Employment Law
Rajneesh Khajuria v Wockhardt: Industrial Court Could Not Decide Termination Dispute Assigned to Labour Court
Case details
| Case | Rajneesh Khajuria v. M/s. Wockhardt Ltd. & Anr. |
|---|---|
| Case number | Civil Appeal No. 8989 of 2019, arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 6692 of 2015 |
| Date | 15 January 2020 |
| Bench | Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta |
| Principal statute | Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 |
| Key provisions | Sections 7 and 32; Items 1, 3, 7, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV |
| Result | Appeal dismissed; Bombay High Court judgment upheld. |
Background of the dispute
The employee was appointed in 1985 and later promoted. His service conditions permitted transfer during employment. On 21 March 2005, he was transferred to Mumbai. He did not join at the transferred place despite reminders, and his services were terminated on 15 April 2005.
The employee and a union filed a complaint before the Industrial Court alleging that the transfer was mala fide and amounted to unfair labour practices under Items 3, 7, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
The employer disputed the employee's status, defended the transfer as contractual and bona fide, and argued that the Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the legality of termination because termination complaints under Item 1 of Schedule IV fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court.
What is the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971?
The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 creates a statutory framework for recognition of trade unions and adjudication of specified unfair labour practices in Maharashtra. It divides jurisdiction between the Labour Court and Industrial Court depending on the category of unfair labour practice alleged.
The Maharashtra Law and Judiciary Department currently publishes the statute as updated through 31 December 2025: Maharashtra Law and Judiciary Department - Acts and updated texts.
Section 7: jurisdiction of Labour Court
Section 7 assigns to the Labour Court complaints relating to unfair labour practices described in Item 1 of Schedule IV. Item 1 broadly concerns employer conduct connected with discharge or dismissal, including victimisation, mala fide action, patently false reasons, colourable exercise of rights and similar termination-related unfair labour practices.
Industrial Court jurisdiction
The Industrial Court has jurisdiction over unfair labour practice complaints assigned to it by the Act, other than the Item 1 category reserved for the Labour Court. In the present case, the original complaint challenged the transfer under Items 3, 7, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV.
Section 32: power to decide connected matters
Section 32 provides that a Court under the Act may decide matters arising out of an application or complaint properly referred to it. However, the Supreme Court held that this connected-matters power cannot override the Act's specific distribution of jurisdiction.
The official Maharashtra text states that Section 32 enables the Court to decide matters arising out of an application or complaint before it, but it does not authorise one statutory forum to decide a category expressly assigned to another.
Items 3, 7, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV
The employee's complaint alleged that the transfer itself amounted to unfair labour practice. Item 3 concerns mala fide transfer from one place to another under the guise of management policy. Other cited items address specified employer conduct treated as unfair labour practice under Schedule IV.
The Supreme Court separately examined whether the transfer could be treated as mala fide and whether malice could be inferred merely from the circumstances relied on by the employee.
Supreme Court on mala fide transfer
The Court held that an allegation of mala fides against a transfer was not sustainable where the person said to have acted mala fide had not been impleaded. A person against whom personal mala fides are alleged should ordinarily be made a party so that the allegation can be answered.
The Court also found that transferring an employee after about twenty years of service to the company's headquarters did not, on those facts alone, justify an inference of ill feeling, spite or absence of lawful excuse.
Could termination be treated as ancillary to transfer?
The employee argued that because termination followed non-joining at the transferred post, Section 32 allowed the Industrial Court to examine the termination as a connected or consequential matter.
The Supreme Court rejected that argument. It held that the Legislature had expressly assigned termination-related unfair labour practices under Item 1 of Schedule IV to the Labour Court. The general connected-matters power in Section 32 could not be used to defeat that specific allocation.
Why the appeal was dismissed
The Supreme Court agreed with the Bombay High Court that the transfer was supported by the terms of employment and that the Industrial Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by dealing with termination. Since the employee had not pursued the termination dispute before the forum specifically designated by the statute, no ground for interference was made out.
Current legal relevance
The judgment remains important because the Maharashtra statute continues to be published and applied as a separate State labour-law framework. Its central principle is one of statutory forum allocation: where a law creates distinct adjudicatory forums for different categories of disputes, jurisdiction must be exercised strictly according to that statutory division.
The Maharashtra Labour Department also publishes current labour-law and Industrial Relations Code materials. Practitioners should therefore check the current statutory text and any applicable notifications before filing: Maharashtra Labour Department - Acts and Rules.
Key legal principles
- Termination disputes under Item 1 of Schedule IV fall within the Labour Court's jurisdiction.
- The Industrial Court cannot assume that jurisdiction merely because termination followed a transfer challenged before it.
- Section 32 does not override the specific statutory allocation of jurisdiction between Labour Court and Industrial Court.
- Personal mala fides should ordinarily be pleaded against and answered by the person alleged to have acted mala fide.
- A contractual transfer to another workplace or headquarters is not automatically an unfair labour practice.
- Jurisdiction of a statutory tribunal must be invoked in accordance with the statute creating it.
Judgment and official references
Official Supreme Court judgment PDF
Maharashtra Law and Judiciary Department - Updated Acts
This article summarises the Supreme Court judgment and the relevant Maharashtra labour-law framework for general legal information. Forum selection depends on the precise statutory category of unfair labour practice pleaded.