Bombay High Court
Bennett Coleman Co. Ltd. And Others vs Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha on 25 April, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1994(4)BOMCR505, (1995)ILLJ225BOM
JUDGMENT
D.R. Dhanuka. J.
1. By Writ Petition No. 1079 of 1994, the petitioners seek to impugned order dated 17th February 1994 passed by the Industrial Court in application for interim relief made by the complainant in Complaint (ULP) No. 1260 of 1993.
2. By Writ Petition No. 1090 of 1994, the petitioner seek to impugned order dated 21st February 1994 passed by the Industrial Court in application for interim relief made by the complainant in Complaint (ULP) No. 1261 of 1993.
3. Both the above referred petitions are inter-connected and are heard together. At the hearing of the petitions for consideration of admission thereof, I had made it clear to the learned counsel on both sides that the Court shall endeavour to dispose of both the petitions finally as far as possible. The learned counsel on both sides were thus invited by the Court to argue the petitions in detail.
4. The petitioner no. 1 Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. is a proprietor of well known "Times of India Group Publications". The petitioner no. 1 publishes "Maharashtra Times" an extremely popular daily newspaper. Shri Govind Talwalkar is the Editor of Maharashtra Times and is a well known journalist in the City of Bombay. Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha is a trade union duly recognised under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. 1971 entitled to represent both working journalists and non-journalist employees of the company.
5. On 22nd March 1993, a memorandum of settlement was arrived at between the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 1 under section 18(1) read with section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said settlement shall be operative upto 31st July 1995. The said settlement is applicable to non-journalists workmen and working journalists of the 1st petitioner company in its newspaper establishment at :
(i) Dr. D. N. Road, Bombay
(ii) The Times Suburban Press, Kandivali
(iii) Godown at Masjid Siding, Bombay.
(iv) Maintenance Depot at Fort Market.
Prior to arriving at the said settlement, and earlier settlement had subsisted between the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 1 union. Clause 10 of the said settlement reads as under :
CLAUSE NO. (10) : PROMOTION POLICY AND FILLING OF VACANCIES :
That the Company shall continue to follow the practice of effecting internal promotions from within the whole establishment, irrespective of vacancies caused in any section or department, on seniority-cum-merits, qualifications, experience etc. AND That in furtherance to this the Company shall continue to notify all such vacancies on the notice boards and in appropriate cases advertise the vacancies also.
Copies of the notices shall also be forwarded to the Sabha as is done at present.
AND FURTHER THAT vacancies caused in natural process shall include new vacancies and position created by the Company to meet exigencies of work. Such Vacancies shall be required to be filled up within three months from the dates vacancies are caused."
The last part of clause 10 was newly inserted in settlement dated 22nd March 1993 and did not exist in the earlier settlement.
6. By clause 10 of the said settlement it was provided that the 1st petitioner company shall continue to follow the practice of effecting internal promotions from within the whole establishment on seniority-cum-merits basis etc. By later part of the said clause it was provided that the vacancies caused in natural process shall include new vacancies and positions created by the Company to meet exigencies of work. The said clause specifically provided that :
"Such vacancies shall be required to be filled up within three months from the dates vacancies are caused."
7. Sometime in the month of November 1993, the respondent no. 1 filed two complaints before the Industrial Court at Bombay invoking the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Complaint (ULP) No. 1260 of 1993 was in respect of alleged unfair labour practices under item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. Complaint (ULP) No. 1261 of 1993 was in respect of alleged unfair labour practices under items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the said Act. I shall first summaries the relevant portions of the complaint (ULP) no. 1261 of 1993. It was inter alia alleged in para. 3.5 of the said complaint that the petitioner no. 1 was continuing to retain Shri Govind Talwalkar as Editor Incharge of Maharashtra Times even though he was 68 year old and had crossed the normal age for retirement long before. In the same para, the respondent no. 1 alleged that the petitioner no. 1 had unfairly inducted an outsider Shri Kumar Ketkar in the establishment as an Executive Editor of the said daily newspaper. The respondent no. 1 further alleged that the petitioner no. 1 had failed to implement clause 10 of the above referred settlement and Shri Ashok Jain, Shri Prakash Bal, Shri V. V. Karmarkar and Mrs. Neela Upadhyaya were by - passed for promotion in a manner which constituted unfair labour practice. The respondent no. 1 contended that the petitioner no. 1 had done great injustice to the department candidates who were entitled to be considered for internal promotion under clause 10 of the said settlement. The respondent no. 1 also contended that the petitioner no. 1 was not entitled to employ retired personnel on contract basis or resort to direct recruitment. The respondent no. 1 also contended that vacancies had not been filled up for a very long time and the existing members of the staff were being asked to do overwork and were victimised. By Complaint (ULP) No. 1260 of 1993, the respondent no. 1 mainly complained in respect of not filing up of large number of vacancies which had arisen in various sections and departments of petitioner no. 1 as listed in annexure 'F' to the said complaint. In both the complaints, the respondent no. 1 had filed applications for interim reliefs as set out therein.
8. In Complaint (ULP) No. 1261 of 1993, the petitioner no. 1 employer filed its detailed written statement. The contentions urged on behalf of respondent no. 1 which are required to be noticed at this stage are briefly summarise as under :
(a) The working journalists were not 'workmen' as defined under section 2(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The working journalists were merely deemed to be 'workmen' for purposes of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by virtue of section 3 of Working Journalists (Conditions of Services) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1955. The working journalists were not "employees" under section 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act. The M. R. T. U. & PULP Act was not applicable to the working journalists. The complaint made on behalf of and for the benefit of the working journalists was thus, beyond jurisdiction and ex-facie not maintainable.
(b) The "existing practice" referred to in clause 10 of the settlement permitted petitioner no. 1 to recruit candidates from outside as well as internal candidates as the management deemed fit. The petitioner no. 1 was also entitled to appoint retired personnel or others on contract basis. The main object of petitioner no. 1 was to achieve excellence and the petitioner no. 1 was therefore duty bound to engage, employ, promote or recruit best available journalists of for the job. It was not the mandate of clause 10 of the settlement that all appointments or promotions must be only by promoting departmental employees.
(c) The criticism made by respondent no. 1 in its complaint against retention of Mr. Govind Talwalkar was unjustified. In paragraph 12 of the written statement it was state that there was an existing practice to appoint eminent persons on contract basis even after age of 60 years. In the said paragraph of the written statement, the petitioner no. 1 stated that Mr. Shymlal, Editor in Chief of Times of India continued till the age of 65 years and Dr. R. K. Lakshman, Sr. Cartoonist was continuing in service of the Times of India even though he had reached the age of 69. The petitioner no. 1 pointed out that Dr. Mishra joined the petitioner no. 1 as Chief Editor of Navbharat Times while he was of the age 63 years.
(d) The petitioner no. 1 defended the appointed of Mr. Kumar Ketkar as an Executive Editor.
(e) The petitioner no. 1 contended that the petitioner no. 1 had not indulged in any unfair labour practice and the promotions of Ashok Jain, Prakash Bal, Mr. V. V. Karmarkar and Mrs. Neela Upadhya were not withheld by petitioner no. 1 so as to constitute alleged unfair labour practices in breach of clause 10 of the settlement or otherwise. As regards not filling up of the vacancies listed in Exhibit 'F' to the complaint (ULP) No. 1260 of 1993, the petitioner no. 1 contended as under :
"The respondent company states that most of these posts are occupied by persons who are permanent in these posts and the rest are affected by modernisation and the work relating the to these alleged vacancies do not exist and there is no vacancy continuing to exist nor is there any increase in workload."
The list of vacancies referred to in Annexure 'F' to the complaint indicates that according to respondent no. 1 vacancies existed in the posts of head reader, proof reader, printer, Assistant Printer, Senior Reporter, Chief Sub-Editor, Senior Sub-Editor, Sub-Editor, Peons, Dark Room Assistant, etc.
9. In Complaint (ULP) No. 1261 or 1993, Shri Vishnu Viswanath Karmarkar filed his affidavit-in-rejoinder in a every straight way manner highlighting the facts as they existed.
10. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the petitioner brought it to the notice of the Court that the question as to whether working journalists could invoke the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 or not was already the subject matter of pending writ petition no, 687 of 1988. In this Petition Bharucha J. as his Lordship then was, clearly observed that the said writ petition was admitted because it raised a question : Does the M. R. T. U. & P. U. L. P. Act apply to working journalists. In my opinion, it is the need of the hour that jurisdictional questions must be decided by the High Court as soon as possible. It is necessary in the interest of certainty of law that such questions should not be kept pending for being resolved by the Court in due course and after a long time. I, therefore, informed the learned counsel on both sides that I propose to decide this question at the stage of admission. The said question is therefore finally decided for all purposes.
11. It is interesting to refer to the well known judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Express Newspapers Limited v. Union of India for the purpose of understanding the background in which the Working Journalists Act 1 of 1955 and the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees etc. Act. 1955 (Act 45 of 1955) were passed by Parliament. On 23rd September 1952, the Government of India appointed Press Commission under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Justice C. S. Rajadhyaksha. The said Commission submitted its report inter alia observing that the working journalists could not be considered as workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as it then stood. Almost immediately after the report of the press Commission, the Parliament passed the Working Journalists (Industrial Disputes) Act (1 of 1955) which received the assent of the President on March 12, 1955. It was an Act to apply the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to Working Journalists. The expression "Working Journalists" was defined by the said Act. Section 3 of the said act provided that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 shall apply to, or in relation to, working journalists as they apply to or in relation to workmen within the meaning of that Act. Thus, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was applied to working Journalists. This Act was founded to be inadequate and there was considerable agitation in Parliament for implementation of the recommendations of the Press Commission. In this context, the Working Commission. In this context, the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Services) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 1955 (Act 45 of 1955) was passed. Sec 2(g) of the said Act read as under :
"all words and expressions used but not defined in this Act and defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that Act."
Section 3 of the said Act 45 of the 1955 is directly relevant for our purposes. The said section reads as under :
"3. Act 14 of 1947 to apply to working journalists. (1) the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as in force in the time being shall subject to the modification specified in sub-section (2) apply to, or in relation to, working journalists as they apply to, or in relation to workmen within the meaning of that Act.
(2) Section 25F of the aforesaid Act, in its application to working journalists, shall be construed as if in clause (a) thereof, for the period of notice referred to therein in relation to the retrenchment of a workman, the following periods of notice in relation to the retrenchment of a working journalists had been substituted, namely -
(a) six months, in the case of an editor and
(b) three months, in the case of any other working journalist."
It is clear that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 as in force for the time being are applicable to working journalists save and except the modifications specified in sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act. The Industrial Disputes Act in its application to working journalists must be read not in isolation but together with the provisions contained in the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. The said Act 45 of 1955 incorporates the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as if with pen and ink except in respect of the specific modifications set out in sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act.
12. I shall now refer to the relevant provision of Maharashtra Act 1 of 1972 known as the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971 Section 3(2) of the said Act defines the expression "Central Act" as under :-
"Central Act" means the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."
Section 3(1) of the said Act defines the Bombay Act as Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1946.
Section 3(5) of the said Act reads as under :
"employee" in relation to an industry to which the Bombay Act for the time being applies, mean an employee as defined in clause (13) of section 3 of the Bombay Act; and in any other case, means a workmen as defined in clause (s) of section 2 of the Central Act;"
13. To my mind, it is, quite clear that the definition of 'Workman' as defined in clause (s) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Section 3 of the Working Journalists Act (45 of 1955) is in term incorporated in Maharashtra Act 1 of 1972 while defining the expression "employee". Section 28 of the said Act provides that a complaint relating to unfair labour practice may be filed by any union or an employee or an employer or an Investigating Officer. Thus, if the working journalists can be considered as employee within the meaning of section 3(5) of the Act, it must follow that the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the complaint was clearly maintainable even in so far as it concerned working journalists.
14. In Bihar Journals Ltd. V. Ali Hasan and Anr. , a question arose before the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna consisting of V. Ramaswami C. J. and R. K. Choudhary, J. as to whether sub-editor of newspaper was workman as defined in section 2(f) of Act 45 of 1955 and by virtue of Section 3(1) of that Act he was a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. In paragraph 3 of the said judgment R. K. Choudhary J. speaking for the Bench observed that a sub-editor of a newspaper was not merely a working journalists but was also a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. I am in complete agreement with the ratio of this judgment.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of High Court of Delhi in the case of The Management of M/s. Statement Ltd. V. Lt. Governor, Delhi and Ors. reported in 1975 L. I. C. 543. In this case, B. C. Mishra J. speaking for the Court observed that the modification of the Industrial Disputes Act in its application to Working Journalists was indicated by sub-sec. (2) of Section 3 and other provisions of Act 45 of 1955 but subject to these modifications, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 applied mutatis mutandis to the working journalists. In this case, the High Court of Delhi observed that the working journalists were entitled to all the benefits flowing from Industrial Disputes Act subject to modification indicated by sub-sec (2) of Section 3 and other provisions of Act 45 of 1955 and it was therefore not necessary to decide whether they were really workmen as such. The said judgment thus contains some observations to the effect that the question as to whether the working journalists were workmen or not was kept open. If any observations are to be spelt out from the said judgment to the effect that the working journalists were not workmen within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, I respectfully disagree with such observations.
16. The Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the working journalists are deemed to be workmen only for the purpose of Industrial Disputes Act and the said fiction cannot be extended to the provisions contained in Maharashtra Act no. 1 of 1972.
17. It is well settled law that where a fiction is created by a provision of law, the Court must give full effect to the fiction. It is well settled that the Court should not allow its imagination to be boggled by any other imagination. Fiction must be given its due play. There is no half way stop. If necessary, a reference may be made to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. V. M/s. Jalan Udyog & Anr. .
18. The definition of the expression "employee" in Maharashtra Act 1 1972 incorporates the definition of the expression "workmen" as set out in clause (s) of Section 2 of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947. The definition of the expression "workman" as defined in clause (s) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is applicable to the working journalists by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 2(g) of Section 3 of the Act No. 45 of 1955. Maharashtra Act No. 1 of 1972 cannot be read in isolation. The Scheme and object of the said Act is clear. The scheme and object of the said Act is more than clear if one takes note of section 59 of Maharashtra Act 1 of 1972. It is open to the employees as defined in Maharashtra Act 1 of 1972 or to the workmen as defined in Industrial Disputes Act 1947 to invoke the machinery provided by Maharashtra Act No. 1 of 1972 of the machinery provided by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
19. In view of the above discussion, I held that both the complaints filed by the respondent No. 1 were maintainable in law and the Industrial Court has jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint. It is hereby clarified that this finding is not to be treated as an expression of view of the Court at an interlocutory stage. This view is taken by the Court finally for all purposes including for the purpose of deciding the pending complaints as well as pending writ petitions before the Single Judge of this Court.
20. Both parties have argued at length in respect of interpretation of clause 10 of settlement dated 22nd March 1993. Both the petitioners are admitted only in respect of controversy concerning interpretation of clause 10 of the said settlement and passing of consequential orders in light thereof at the final hearing of the petition if it becomes necessary so to do.
21. The learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1 have not been able to point out any provision of law whereby the petitioner no. 1 can be prevented from employing eminent journalists on contract basis after reaching their normal age of retirement. I have therefore no hesitation in observing that the petitioner no. 1 is perfectly within its legal rights to retain the services of Shri Govind Talwalkar and others as the petitioner no. 1 deems fit in exercise of its discretion I need say no more on this aspect.
22. As regards the controversy concerning Shri Kumar Ketkar is concerned, I must refer to paragraph 23 of the impugned order passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 1261 of 1993. The Industrial Court has clearly observed in the said paragraph of its order that the Industrial Court did not find any reason to give directions for setting aside the appointment of Shri Kumar as the new Executive Editor, Maharashtra Times. Shri Cama, the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 did not directly or indirectly assail this finding of the Industrial Court at this stage in this petition. It is hereby clarified that the petitioner no. 1 has not indulged in any unfair labour practice by appointing Shri Kumar Ketkar as new Executive Editor, Maharashtra Times.
23. By the impugned order dated 21st February 1994 passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 1261 of 1993, the Industrial Court has directed that the petitioner no. 1 must promote Shri Ashok Jain, Shri Prakash Bal. Mrs. Neela Upadhya and Mr. V. V. Karmarkar to their respective posts. Shri Ashok Jain is already promoted/appointed by petitioner no. 1 as Executive Editor (Sunday Section of Maharashtra Times). The respondent no. 1 has no subsisting grievance in this behalf. According, the question of petitioner no. 1 implementing this part of the order any more does not survive.
24. As regards the direction of the Industrial Court to promote Shri Prakash Bal, Shri V. V. Karmarkar and Mrs. Neela Upadhya is concerned. I shall deal with the controversy little letter. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Industrial Court could not give direction to the petitioner no. 1 to promote the said parsons at interlocutory stage. The learned counsel for the petitioners virtually submitted as if the said direction was without jurisdiction. In my opinion, the submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioners is rather extreme and the same cannot be accepted as far as power of the Court is concerned. If in a given case the Industrial Court or the High Court comes to the conclusion that withholding of the promotion by the management prima facie constitute unfair labour practice and such withholding was in breach of the settlement duly arrived at between the management and the union, the Court shall certainly have discretion to remedy the injustice caused to the employees. It is the mandate of the settlement that the vacancies must be filled up within three months from occurring of the vacancies. If the vacancies continue for abnormally long time and outsiders are recruited on contract basis or on direct basis one after another to the prejudice of the department candidates awaiting for promotion, the Court can certainly pass appropriate interlocutory orders even if such order takes shape of directing the management to grant promotions on ad hoc basis of interim basis subject to result of the complaints. I have therefore no hesitation in rejecting the extreme submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned counsel for respondent no. 1 has submitted that all vacancies must be filled up by internal promotions only. In my view, this is not the mandate of clause 10 of the settlement. The settlement refer to "continuation of existing practice. It appears that the existing practice has always been to appoint at least some persons on contract basis or employ some eminent journalists who have already retired as obvious from the instances set out in the written statement filed by petitioner no. 1 in Complaint (ULP) No. 1261 of 1993. This aspect can be examined in greater detail. I have therefore no hesitation in rejecting this extreme submission also at this stage. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if two interpretation are possible, the question of petitioners committing unfair labour practice does not arise. This argument suffer from over simplification. It shall be decided at the final hearing of the petition as to whether two interpretations of clause 10 of the settlement are possible or not. For the moment, the Court shall have to evolve a reasonable workable formula in an endeavour to do justice to both the parties and pass appropriate interim orders.
25. I have gone through the records of both the complaints produced before the Industrial Court as well as this court in detail with the assistance of the learned counsel on both sides. I have no doubt in my mind as at present advice that Shri Prakash Bal, Shri V. V. Karmarkar and Mrs. Neela Upadhya have suffered injustice and the interim order passed by the Industrial Court need not be interfered with although the said order is required to be re-framed and recast in view of the slight ambiguity which has crept in. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 pointed out that according to the submissions made by the union Shri Ashok Jain, Shri Prakash Bal and Shri V. V. Karmarkar must be designated as Executive Editor and Mrs. Neela Upadhya must be designated as Senior Assistant Editor on temporary basis subject to result of the petition and subject to the result of the complaint. After considering the submissions on both sides, I issue the following directions regarding the interim promotions of Shri Prakash Bal, Shri V. V. Karmarkar and Mrs. Neela Upadhya.
(i) Subject to result of this petition, the petitioner no. 1 is directed to promote on ad hoc basis on and from 1st May 1994 Shri Prakash Bal as Executive Editor-II. Shri Ashok Jain shall be treated as Executive Editor-I
(ii) Subject to the result of the petition, the petitioners no. 1 is directed to promote Shri V. V. Karmarkar as Executive Editor (Sports) with effect from 1st May 1994.
(iii) Subject to result of the petition on and from 1st May 1994, the petitioner no. 1 shall appoint Mrs. Neela Upadhya as Asstt. Editor (Sunday Section).
26. I shall now concentrate on the filling up of the existing and future vacancies in respect whereof the Industrial Court has passed orders in Complaint (ULP) No. 1260 of 1993 and Complaint (ULP) No. 1261 of 1993. The interim orders passed in both these complaints are stayed and substituted by the following interim order of this Court.
(i) The writ petitioners are directed to fill in all the vacancies referred to in Annexure 'F ' to the Complaint (ULP) No. 1260 of 1993 on or before 31st July 1994 save and except the vacancies which have really becomes redundant as a result of modernisation. The affidavit which was filed by the petitioner no. 1 before the Industrial Court in this behalf is found by this Court to be vague. The Petitioner no. 1 shall file a complete and specific affidavit in this Court in respect of the vacancies which have become redundant as a result of modernisation on or before 28th April 1994. The Court may issue further directions in this behalf if necessary.
(ii) The petitioner no. 1 shall fill up all existing and future vacancies referred to in Annexure 'F' to the above referred complaint or otherwise if the following ratio :
At least 60% of the vacancies must be filled up by internal promotion by strickly following the mandate of clause 10 of the settlement. Such vacancies must also be filled up before 31st July 1994.
(iii) The petitioner no. 1 shall be entitled to fill up balance of the vacancies on ad hoc basis and subject to the result of the petition by direct recruitment by engaging eminent journalists on contract basis so as to meet the exigencies of the situation. If there is isolated post and implementation of the above referred direction fixing the ratio for filling up of the vacancies at this interlocutory stage of this writ petition is not feasible, the petitioner no. 1 shall have discretion to fill up such vacancy as it deems fit bearing it in mind that if an equally competent candidate is available from category of departmental candidate, the petitioner no. 1 must give preference to the departmental candidate. The Court is trying to balance the justice of the case so as to take care of the aspirations of the departmental promotes so as to attache weightage to the case of petitioner no 1 regarding excellence to be achieved and the need to follow the existing practice.
(iv) Merely because the petitions are admitted, the Industrial Court need not delay the final hearing and disposal of the pending complaints. The Industrial Court is directed to dispose of both the complaints expeditiously as far as possible.
(v) Rule to issue restricted to the controversy in respect of the interpretation of clause 10 of settlement dated 22nd March 1993 and the consequential orders based thereon. Rule returnable in the month of July 1994.
(vi) The respondent waives service of the rule.
(vii) Affidavit in reply to be filed expeditiously.
(viii) As regards the controversy concerning interpretation of clause 10 of the settlement is concerned, the industrial Court may take final decision on the complaints independently of the observations made by this Court in this interim order as the observations made are prima facie. As far as the jurisdiction and maintainability of the complaints is concerned, the controversy shall not be allowed to be re-opened.
(ix) At this stage Mr. Dharmadhikari, the learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the respondent no. 1 has filed complaint before the Labour Court in view of the slight delay in implementation of the orders impugned in these petition. Mr. Cama, the learned counsel for the respondent makes a statement at the Bar that the said complaint shall not be pursued. In any event, the said complaints are quashed with immediate effect.
(x) For Further orders, adjourned to 28th April 1994.
Liberty to apply.
(xi) Issue of certified copy expedited.