Skip to content


Vidarbha Engineering Industry Vs. Member, Industrial Court and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 1930 of 1983
Judge
Reported in1986(1)BomCR66
ActsMaharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Sections 30(2)
AppellantVidarbha Engineering Industry
RespondentMember, Industrial Court and ors.
Appellant AdvocateA.B. Oka, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateP.C. Marpakwar, Adv. for respondents 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 17 and 19
DispositionWrit petition allowed
Excerpt:
- - the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is well founded......recognition of trade unions and prevention of unfair labour practices act, 1971 (for short the act). the power is exercised by the courts below under section 30(2) of the act.2. it is not in dispute between the parties that the petitioner industry was closed on 1-4-1983 from which date the services of the respondents 3 to 23 also stood terminated. since admittedly the industry of the petitioner is closed, there is no question of granting any relief of reinstatement by way of an interim relief pending decision in the said cases because granting the same would amount to directing the petitioner to reopen his industry. it is open to doubt whether the labour court has, even at the time of deciding the case finally under section 30(1) of the act, such a power to direct the petitioner.....
Judgment:

H.W. Dhabe, J.

1. This is a writ petition arising out of the interim relief granted by the Court below asking the petitioner to reinstate the respondents 3 to 23 by way of an interim measure pending decision in their cases filed by them under sections 28 and 30 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short the Act). The power is exercised by the Courts below under section 30(2) of the Act.

2. It is not in dispute between the parties that the petitioner industry was closed on 1-4-1983 from which date the services of the respondents 3 to 23 also stood terminated. Since admittedly the industry of the petitioner is closed, there is no question of granting any relief of reinstatement by way of an interim relief pending decision in the said cases because granting the same would amount to directing the petitioner to reopen his industry. It is open to doubt whether the Labour Court has, even at the time of deciding the case finally under section 30(1) of the Act, such a power to direct the petitioner to reopen his industry. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is well founded. The impugned orders, therefore, deserve to be set aside.

3. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders of the courts below are hereby set aside. Rule made absolute in the above terms. However, in the circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //