Writ Petition No. 7742 of 2016. Case: M/s. Pravi Auto Swing Pvt Ltd. Vs Ashok Kisan More and Ors.. Bombay High Court

Case Number:Writ Petition No. 7742 of 2016
Party Name:M/s. Pravi Auto Swing Pvt Ltd. Vs Ashok Kisan More and Ors.
Counsel:For Appellant: Mr. Kiran Bapat i/b M/s. Desai & Desai Associates and For Respondents: Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad, Adv.
Judges:R. M. Savant, J.
Issue:Labour Law
Judgement Date:September 26, 2016
Court:Bombay High Court


1 Rule. With the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.

  1. The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the judgment and order dated 21-3-2016 passed by the Learned Member of the Industrial Court by which order, the complaint in question being Complaint ULP No.54 of 2005 came to be allowed resultantly a declaration came to be issued that the Petitioner herein who was the Respondent in the Complaint has engaged in unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act 1971. A further direction came to be issued to the Petitioner to pay the remaining subsistence allowance @ 75% for the period between 90 days to 180 days and thereafter @ 100% for the period beyond 180 days.

  2. It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary details having regard to the nature of the final directions to be issued. The Respondents herein were in employment with the Petitioner. It seems that on account of certain incidents which had taken place in the factory premises of the Petitioner that a charge sheet came to be issued to each of the Respondents alleging misconduct against them. In view of the situation prevailing in the factory premises and outside it, which was on account of the acts of the Respondents, the Petitioner had filed Complaint ULP No.59 of 2004 and in the said Complaint, the Petitioner had filed an application for interim relief. In the said application, an exparte adinterim order came to be passed against the Union representing the Respondents on 18-1-12004, and the interim relief granted was that the Respondents Union and its office bearers, striking workers their representatives, agents etc, were restrained from wandering, sitting and loitering within the periphery of 1500 meters from the gate of the factory of the Petitioner and the surrounding vacant area. They were further restrained from obstructing the moments, jobs, material discharge, vehicles visitors etc. It seems that though the said order was passed in the Complaint ULP filed by the Petitioner, since a domestic inquiry had commenced against the Respondents, the Petitioner vide its letter dated 14-2-2005 (similar letter was addressed to all the Respondents) had informed the Respondents that the interim order passed by the Industrial Court would not come in the way of the Respondents from attending the inquiry proceedings. The Respondents replied to the said letter vide their reply dated 21-2-2005 and in the said reply, it was stated that in view of the interim order passed by the Industrial Court, it was not possible for the Respondents to remain present in the...

To continue reading