HC imposes cost of `2L on Adani

Observing that the petition filed by Adani Electricity Mumbai Limited “is an effort to tire out the members of the union in their battle with the petitioning company”, the Bombay High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 2 lakh on the company.

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik on May 6 directed Adani to pay the cost to the Mumbai Electric Workers Union within three months from the date of the order.

The dispute is related to employment agreements covering wages and age of retirement, besides other issues. There have been various disputes over the years, some of which have been settled. However, without going into the details of the original dispute between the company and the workers’ union, the HC has held that the industrial tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear the matter and decide on the same as soon as possible.

The HC was hearing a petition filed by Adani contending that the provisions of the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (MIR Act), were not applicable to it since it is engaged in generation and supply of electricity in Mumbai and Mira-Bhayandar. The company has a coalfired thermal power plant at Dahanu in Palghar. Prior to August 29, 2018, the plant and business were owned by and carried out by the Bombay

Suburban Electric Supply

Limited. Later, the company was transferred to M/s. Reliance Energy Limited and subsequently to M/s. Reliance Infrastructure Limited. On August 29, 2018, it was transferred to Adani.

It had challenged the orders of the industrial tribunal of August 20, 2019, and all subsequent orders passed by it.

AV Bukhari, senior advocate appearing for the union, contended that the petition was filed belatedly and that the company and its predecessor companies had participated in the hearings before the tribunal without raising any issues. He further contended that the petition has been filed “to scuttle all efforts under the provisions of the MIR Act to ensure and/or secure industrial peace and harmony”.

However, JP Cama, Adani’s counsel argued that the MIR Act does not cover industries which are involved in both generation and supply of electricity in Mumbai. The Act and notifications issued under that apply only to companies which are involved only in supply of the electricity. Government pleader Himanshu Thatte contended that Adani was covered under the MIR.

Observing that the notifications were “unambiguously clear”, the HC said: “... we have no hesitation to hold that the reference made under the MIR Act is certainly maintainable and that the provisions do apply to the petitioning company (Adani)”.