IN THE judgement of the case-Vidyut Metallics Employees Union v. Vidyut Metallics Private Ltd.,delivered on April 9, 2026, Justice Amit Borkar has held at the Bombay High Court, that the word “employee” in section 50 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, cannot be read as including the Union in the present facts. The petitioner has not shown any permission from the employee. Because of this, the Union cannot file recovery in its own name. It has no legal capacity under this section to do so.

 

The order passed by the Industrial Court on April 21, 2023 does not show any mistake in law. It is not perverse. It is within its jurisdiction. There is no reason for Court to interfere. Through this petition, the petitioner-Union has challenged the legality and correctness of the judgment and order of April 21, 2023 passed by the Industrial Court in Misc. Application Recovery (ULP) 3 of 2013. The respondent-Company at Thane was employing about 1500 persons, a substantial number of whom were members of the Union a settlement of February 2, 2006, came to be executed between the petitioner and the respondent during conciliation proceedings, governing the service conditions of the employees including wages, allowances and bonus. Under the Clause 11 of the said Settlement the eligible employees were entitled to payment of bonus at least ten days prior to Diwali. Clause 12 dealt with the payment of ex gratia, whereby it was agreed that such amount would be paid at least ten days prior to Diwali, and a sum of Rs. 320 /- per employee would be deducted by the respondent and remitted to the petitioner-Union. It is the case of the petitioner, that the respondent failed to pay bonus to the employees as stipulated. Repeated representations made by the petitioner and the Workmen did not yield any response.

 

Such conduct, according to the petitioner constituted an unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. Consequently, the petitioner instituted Complaint (ULP)425/2008 before the Industrial Court at Thane. The Industrial Court passed an interim order on October 23, 2008, directed the respondent to pay, 50% of the bonus amount to the employees as interim relief. In compliance with the said order, the respondent disbursed 50% of the bonus to the employees. During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondent paid the remaining amount of bonus to the employees and also effected deduction of Rs 320/- from the amounts so paid. However, the respondent failed to send the deducted amount to the petitioner-Union. According to the petitioner, such omission amounted to continuation of unfair labour practice on the part of the respondent. Through the order passed on December 30, 2013, the Industrial Court held that the respondent had engaged in unfair labour practice and directed the respondent to pay to the petitioner the amount of Rs 320/- per employee so deducted.

 

Despite this order, the respondent did not comply with the direction to remit the deducted amount to the petitioner-Union. The petitioner, therefore, invoked the provisions of section 50 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 and filed recovery proceedings before the Industrial Court for enforcement of the said order. The Industrial Court rejected the recovery proceedings filed by the petitioner through the impugned order of April 21, 2023. This led to filing of the writ petition by the petitioner-Union. According to the HC, when, section 50 is read carefully, everything becomes quite clear. The whole section is about recovery of money due to an employee. It allows employee to apply. It allows another person to do so, only if that person is authorised by the employee.

 

So the focus is on the employee and his dues. The petitioner is trying to say that in this context, the word “employee” should be read as including “Union”. But when the section itself repeatedly refers to employee and even adds a condition of written authority, then such reading does not fit. In fact, the context shows clearly opposite. It shows that legislature wanted to keep this remedy limited to employee and those directly authorised by him. It must also be noted that section 50 is not a general recovery or execution provision or all types of claims. It is a special provision made for a specific purpose. It gives a remedy in a defined situation. If it is treated as a general provision then its careful wording will lose meaning. So the object of section 50 is to help an employee to recover already found due to him. The remedy is not open ended. Because of this, the Court also has to act within these limits. The Court cannot expand the section, just because it may appear useful in a given case.

 

Therefore, it becomes clear that context in this case, does not help the petitioner. Instead, it supports plan reading of the section. The definition cannot be stretched to include ‘Union’. The limits fixed by law must be respected. A Court has to see, what the law provides. It cannot change the law because a party feels that the available remedy is not sufficient. If the Legislature has made provision in a particular then that method must be followed. The Court cannot open a new path, just because the existing path is difficult. Sometimes Law may not cover every situation. But that does not mean that Court can add new provisions.

 

If the legislature wanted the Union also to apply under section 50, in its own capacity, it should have clearly said so. The absence of such a provision cannot be treated as a mistake which the Court must correct. The Court’s role is to interpret what is written, not to fill what is nor written. Even, if the Union finds itself in a difficult position, that alone cannot justify expanding the scope of section 50. On a careful reading, the argument of hardship cannot be accepted. The absence of written authorisation is a serious defect. And the interpretation suggested by the petitioner would unsettle the clear scheme of the Act. All the factors together make it difficult to accept the case of the petitioner. The High Court has dismissed the petition.