Bombay High Court
Team Ferro Alloys Private Limited, ... vs Tean Ferro Alloys Power Plant Workers ... on 8 January, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 BOM 87, 2020 (2) ABR 358
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
1 wp3827.19(j)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.3827/2019
1] Team Ferro Alloys Private Limited,
M.I.D.C. Mudipar, Post Dhakni,
Tah. and District Gondia,
Through its Director.
2] Team Ferro Alloys Private Limited,
M.I.D.C.Mundipar, Post Dhakni,
Tah. and District Gondia,
Through its Factory Manager.
....... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1] Team Ferro Alloys Power Plant
Workers Union.
C/o Mr. Pankaj Dulichand Gaidhane,
R/o. M.I.D.C., Mundipar, Post Dhakni,
Tahsil District Gondia - 441 614
2] Mr. Vinesh Chunnilal Ambadare,
Aged about 49 years, Occupation Service.
R/o Post Dasgaon Khurd,
Tahsil and District Gondia.
3] Mr. Premdas Madhaorao Gautam,
Aged about 47 years, Occupation Service,
R/o. Post Indora Khurd,
Tah. Tiroda District Gondia.
4] Mr. Tilak Chand Bhiwaji Harde,
Aged about 36 years, Occupation - Service
R/o. Post Bhusaritola, Post Dawwa,
Tah. Sadak Arjuni, District Gondia.
5] Mr. Kalmata Bhaskarrao Vyankatesham,
Aged about 47 years, Occupation - Service.
R/o. T.B.Toli, Dr. Lohiya Ward,
Near Chamat Kirana Shop,
Tah. And District Gondia.
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2020 05:41:46 :::
2 wp3827.19(j)
6] Mr. Ramesh Chhaganlal Kawle,
Aged about 34 years, Occupation Service.
R/o. Sejgaon Khurd, Post Dongargaon,
Tah. And District Gondia.
7] Mr. Prakash Devchand Bawankar,
Aged about 41 years, Occupation- Service,
R/o. Dasgaon Khurd, Tah. And District Gondia.
8] Mr. Devendra Premlal Rane,
Aged about 27 years, Occupation Service,
R/o. Kohka, Post Ratnara,
Tahsil and District Gondia.
9] Mr. Mohanlal Ambilal Bisen,
Aged about 50 years, Occupation - Service,
R/o. Sejgaon Khurd, Post Dongargaon,
Tahsil and District Gondia.
10] Mr.Dhanraj Keshaorao Barewar,
Aged about 35 years, Occupation - Service,
R/o. Khatitola, Post Davniwada,
Tahsil and District Gondia.
11] Mr. Bhimraj Baliram Parihar,
Aged about 43 years, Occupation -Service.
R/o Nilaj, Post Dasgaon,
Tahsil and District Gondia.
12] Mr. Hiralal Ramji Parde,
Aged about 46 years, Occupation Service
R/o. Post Kudwa, Tahsil and District Gondia.
13] Mr. Umashakar Kishanlal Thakre,
Aged about 32 years, Occupation - Service,
R/o. Post Palchur, Tahsil and District Gondia.
14] Mr. Pradeep Gautam Atre,
Aged about 31 years Occupation Service,
R/o. Lodhitola Post Chutiya,
Tahsil and District Gondia.
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2020 05:41:46 :::
3 wp3827.19(j)
15] Mr. Uttamlal Dhanlal Bhagat,
Aged about 45 years, Occupation Service,
R/o Lodhitola, Post Chutiya,
Tahsil and District Gondia.
16] Mr. Rajesh Dulichand Bisen
Aged about 45 years Occupation Service
R/o Barbaspura Post Temni,
Tahsil and District Gondia
17] Mr. Tenendra B. Sulakhe
Aged about 51 years Occupation Service,
R/o Pandharabodi,
Tahsil and District Gondia
18] Mr. Radheshyam Harichand Markar
Aged about 45 years Occupation Service
R/o Dandegaon, Post Hetitola,
Tahsil and District Gondia
19] Mr. Liladhar Rewaji Lanjewar
Aged about 35 years Occupation Service
R/o Indora Khurd,
Tahsil and District Gondia
20] Mr Chandan Ramlal Damhe
Aged about 32 years Occupation Service
R/o Mundipar Post Dhakni
Tahsil and District Gondia
21] Mr. Anil Giri Shankaracharya
Aged about 40 years Occupation Service
R/o Chandnitola, Post Katangi,
Tahsil and District Gondia
22] Mr Sunil Babulal Maskare
Aged about 30 years Occupation Service
R/o Mhalgaon Post Murdada,
Tahsil and District Gondia
23] Mr Aagesh Ganpat Chauragade
Aged about 41 years Occupation Service
R/o Lakhegaon Post Tiroda,
Tahsil and District Gondia
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2020 05:41:46 :::
4 wp3827.19(j)
24] Mr. Shivchand Parasram Bijewar
Aged about 52 years, Occupation Service
R/o Mundipar Post Dhakani
Tahsil and District Gondia
25] Mr. Shiv Ramji Maske
Aged about 45 years Occupation Service
R/o Atri Post Boda, Tah. Tiroda,
District Gondia
26] Mr. Gyaniram Bharatlal Nagpure
Aged about 41 years Occupation Service
R/o Murdada Post Murdada
Tahsil and District Gondia
27] Mr. Indal Udamsao Bijewar
Aged about 46 years Occupation Service
R/o Atri Post Boda
Tahsil Tiroda, District Gondia
28] Mr. Nandkishor Manohar Tidke
Aged about 37 years Occupation Service
R/o Dongargaon
Tahsil and District Gondia
29] Mr. Shailesh Devdas Meshram
Aged about 35 years Occupation Service
R/o Dongargaon
Tahsil and District Gondia
30] Mr. Shivlal Asaram Rahate
Aged about 35 years Occupation Service
R/o Mundipar Post Dhakani
Tahsil and District Gondia
31] Mr. Virendra Tilakchand Lokhande
Aged about 40 years Occupation Service
R/o Atri, Post Boda
Tahsil and District Gondia
32] Mr Narendra Pyarelal Ganvir
Aged about 44 years Occupation Service
R/o Mundipar Post Dhakani,
Tahsil and District Gondia
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2020 05:41:46 :::
5 wp3827.19(j)
33] Mr. Santosh Motiram Rewatkar
Aged about 44 years Occupation Service
R/o Dongargaon,
Tahsil and District Gondia
34] Mr Deepak Chhaganlal Kawle
Aged about 32 years Occupation Service
R/o Sejgaon, Post Dongargaon,
Tahsil and District Gondia.
35] Mr Vilesh Devdas Meshram
Aged about 31 years, Occupation Service
R/o Dongargaon, Post Murdada
Tahsil and District Gondia
36] Mr. Bholeshwar Jiyalal Piprewar
Aged about 41 years Occupation Service
R/o Kawaditola, Post Gidhadi,
Tahsil Goregaon and District Gondia
37] Mr. Jaykishore Narayan Tembhare
Aged about 39 years, Occupation Service
R/o Dasgaon Khurd
Tahsil and District Gondia
38] Mr. Chhagan Krishnaji Raut
Aged about 35 years, Occupation Service
R/o Mundipar, Post Dhakani
Tahsil and District Gondia
39] Mr. Rajhans Janba Sonwane
Aged about 44 years, Occupation Service
R/o Dhamnewada, Post Dandegaon,
Tahsil Goregaon, District Gondia
40] Mr. Rajendra Kapursingh Bais
Aged about 40 years Occupation Service
R/o Dongali, Post Dasgaon
Tahsil and District Gondia
41] Mr. Rajendra Pemlal Fatteh
Aged about 38 years, Occupation Service
R/o Bhanpur, Dongargaon,
Tahsil and District Gondia
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2020 05:41:46 :::
6 wp3827.19(j)
42] Mr. Homendra Manohar Tidke
Aged about 35 years Occupation Service
R/o Atri Post Boda,
Tahsil and District Gondia
43] Mr. Sanjay Umesh Admane
Aged about 34 years, Occupation Service
R/o Kharra, Post Gangajhari
Tahsil and District Gondia
44] Mr. Nilkanth Kisan Admane
Aged about 49 years, Occupation Service
R/o Khara, Post Gangajhari,
Tahsil and District Gondia
45] Mr. Chaitlal Ramdas Chachane
Aged about 43 years Occupation Service
R/o Dandegaon,
Tahsil and District Gondia
46] Mr. Kunjilal Jagannath Tidke
Aged about 36 years, Occupation Service
R/o Atri Post Boda,
Tahsil and District Gondia
47] Mr. Gyaniram Somaji Khatole
Aged about 52 years, Occupation Service
R/o Mundipar, Post Dhakani,
Tahsil and District Gondia
48] Mr. Shalikram Godhru Yerne
Aged about 57 years Occupation Service
R/o Lodhitola, Post Dhakni,
Tahsil and District Gondia
49] Mr. Deepak Pendharu Bansod
Aged about 43 years, Occupation Service
R/o Kharra, Post Gangajhari,
Tahsil and District Gondia
50] Mr. Roshanlal Anantram Deshbhratar
Aged about 49 years, Occupation Service
R/o Parbandh, Post Dongargaon,
Tahsil and District Gondia
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2020 05:41:46 :::
7 wp3827.19(j)
51] Mr. Mahendra Kapurchand Wahne
Aged about 45 years, Occupation Service
R/o at post Gangajhari
Tahsil and District Gondia
52] Mr. Mukesh Bharatlal Nagpure
Aged about 35 years, Occupation Service
R/o Murdana,
Tahsil and District Gondia
53] Mr. Vijay Bhimsen Gajbhiye
Aged about 44 years, Occupation Service
R/o Chhota Gondia, Chawdi Chowk
Post Gondia, Tahsil and District Gondia
54] Mr. Mohan Shamlal Mandiye
Aged about 32 years, Occupation Service
R/o Mundipar Post Dhakani
Tahsil and District Gondia
55] Mr. Ramesh Chhotelal Kohre
Aged about 53 years, Occupation Service
R/o Kumli, Post Waraseoni,
District Balaghat
56] Mr. Santosh Dhannalal Bhure
Aged about 45 years, Occupation Service
R/o Pandhrabodi
Tahsil and District Gondia
57] Mr. Virendra Sewakram Atre
Aged about 42 years, Occupation Service
R/o Lodhitola, Post Chutiya
Tahsil and District Gondia
58] Mr. Laxmikant Tejlal Thakre
Aged about 40 years, Occupation Service
R/o Lodhitola, Post Chutiya
Tahsil and District Gondia
59] Mr. Pankaj Dulichand Gaidhane
Aged about 32 years, Occupation Service
R/o Munndipar, Post Dhakani
Tahsil and District Gondia
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2020 05:41:46 :::
8 wp3827.19(j)
60] Mr. Nilkanth Sakku Atre
Aged about 50 years, Occupation Service
R/o Lodhitola, Post Chutiya
Tahsil and District Gondia
61] Mr. Rajkumar Bansilal Kshirsagar
Aged about 36 years, Occupation Service
R/o Dhakani, Post Dhakni
Tahsil and District Gondia
62] Mr. Sandeep Durgaprasad Athawale
Aged about 33 years, Occupation Service
R/o Katangi,
Tahsil and District Gondia
63] Mr. Shrichand Sitaram Kshetrapal
Aged about 51 years, Occupation Service
R/o Dhamnewada, Post Dandegaon
Tahsil and District Gondia ....... RESPONDENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.L.Khapre and Shri G.G.Bade, Advocates for petitioners.
Shri B.M.Khan and Shri F.I.Khan, Advocates for respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORUM : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE ON WHICH THE ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD : 25.11.2019
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED : 08.01.2020
JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
2. The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the Industrial Court on the application for grant of interim relief. By the said order, the petitioners-employer has been restrained from ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2020 05:41:46 ::: 9 wp3827.19(j) commencing/continuing with the lock-out of its power plant in pursuance of the notice dated 15.04.2019.
3. The facts giving rise to the present dispute are that :
The petitioners are running a manufacturing plant which is a 8 MW Biomass Base Power Plant. In addition to that manufacturing plant, the petitioners are also operating a captive power plant which has been dedicated for providing localised source of power. Out of 8 MW power the manufacturing unit was being supplied with 4 MW power and it is the case of the petitioners that the remaining
4 MW power was being supplied to the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.(MSEDCL) as per an energy purchase agreement with it. The said energy purchase agreement expired on 30.12.2018 and hence after that date MSEDCL had stopped taking power from the petitioners. As a result the petitioners were constrained to shut down power production in its plant. About 74 employees were working in the said power production department. As a result of the aforesaid, the employer declared lock-out in the production department of the power plant from 02.05.2019. For the said purpose a notice of lock-out dated 15.04.2019 came to be issued by the Factory Manager under the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act of 1971'). Copies of the notice were addressed amongst others to the Additional Commissioner of Labour. In the light of this notice of lock-out, 64 employees who were engaged in the said power plant through their registered union filed a complaint under Section 28 of the Act of 1971 before the Industrial Court. It was their grievance that the notice of lock-out was illegal and ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2020 05:41:46 ::: 10 wp3827.19(j) unwarranted. There was no compliance with the provisions of Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947') and hence the employer had committed an unfair labour practice under Item 1(b) and 6 of Schedule II as well as Item nos. 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act of 1971.
The complaint in question was filed on 24.04.2019 and on 26.04.2019 a notice was received from the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Gondia. In that notice it was stated that the employer had on 20.04.2019 moved a representation with a view to resolve the matter by way of conciliation. The employer as well as the employees were asked to attend a meeting on 30.04.2019. Along with the aforesaid complaint the respondents filed an application under Section 30 (2) of the Act of 1971 praying that the employer be restrained from continuing with the lock- out and further that the production in the power plant be directed to be continued. The employer filed its reply opposing the prayer for grant of interim relief. By the order dated 30.04.2019, the learned Judge of the Industrial Court was pleased to hold that by virtue of notice dated 26.04.2019 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour the conciliation proceedings were pending. Hence in view of the provisions of Section 24 (2)(b) of the Act of 1971 it was not permissible for the employer to lock-out its power plant during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings or for a period of seven days after conclusion of the said proceedings. Thus by holding that a prima facie case was made out by the employees, the Industrial Court passed an interim order restraining the employer from commencing/ continuing the lock-out pursuant to the notice dated 15.04.2019. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid interim order, the employer has challenged the same. ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2020 05:41:46 :::
11 wp3827.19(j)
4. Shri R.L.Khapre, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Industrial Court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the employees had made out a prima-facie case for being entitled to grant of interim relief. The employer could not be treated to be a unit which was providing 'public utility service' as defined by Section 2(n) of the Act of 1947. As long as the energy purchase agreement was in force with the MSEDCL it could be said that the employer was rendering 'public utility service'. After 31.12.2018 the employer ceased to provide power and therefore there was no element of any public utility service being provided by it. On the date when the notice of lock-out was given, the Unit could not be termed as one providing the same. For that reason the provisions of Section 22 (2) of the Act of 1947 would not come into operation. On the other hand the provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 1947 would come into play and the said provisions did not require giving of any notice as contemplated by an employer carrying on any public utility service. It was then submitted that the provisions of Section 24(2)(a) of the Act of 1971 would be applicable. The Industrial Court having recorded a finding that a notice of 14 days had been given on 15.04.2019 with a view to enforce lock-out from 02.05.2019, it could not be said that the lock- out was illegal. According to him, the provisions of Section 24 (2) (b) to (h) of the Act of 1971 would not come into operation and hence there would be no reason to grant any interim relief to the employees. It was his contention that the notice dated 26.04.2019 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour was not a notice with regard to any conciliation proceedings as contemplated by Section 24(2)(b) of the Act of 1971. Hence the entire basis on which the Industrial Court proceeded to record a finding that a prima facie case had been made out was unjustified. The ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2020 05:41:46 ::: 12 wp3827.19(j) learned counsel also referred to the provisions of Section 59 of the Act of 1971 to urge that the filing of the complaint itself was unjustified and by virtue of said provisions, it was not permissible for the Industrial Court to proceed with the adjudication of the said complaint. As a result of the energy purchase agreement not being in force and for which purpose the employer had already approached the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, the grant of interim relief caused great prejudice to the employer. He also sought to justify giving of notice of lock-out by urging that as the activities of the power plant had been stopped, the employer would be required to pay the employees without there being any production activity. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the following decisions :
a] Association of Engineering Vs. V.K.Date and Ors. 2006 (2) LLJ 625 b] Excel Wear Vs. Union of India, (1978) 4 SCC 224.
c] Modistone Limited & Ors. Vs. Modistone Employees Union & anr.
2001 (3) BCR 436.
d] Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Vs. Solid Container Limited and others. 1995 CJ (Bom) 261.
It was thus submitted that the impugned order was liable to be set aside.
5. Shri B.M.Khan, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the impugned order. He submitted that pursuant to the notice of lock-out given by the employer on 15.04.2019, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour /Conciliation Officer had issued a notice to the employer as well as to the employees on 26.04.2019. This indicated commencement of the conciliation proceedings and therefore there was breach of the provisions of Section 22(2)(d) ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2020 05:41:46 :::
13 wp3827.19(j) read with Section 20 (1) of the Act of 1947. He also referred to the provisions of Section 25 J of the Act of 1947 to submit that the employees were entitled to a favourable interpretation of various provisions of the Act of 1947. It was then submitted that it was not permissible for the employer to contend that it was not rendering any 'public utility service' especially when the employer had taken such a stand in the complaint filed by it bearing No.58 of 2018 challenging the strike called by the employees. He referred to the interim order passed by the Industrial Court dated 22.10.2018 in the said complaint and submitted that the employer could not be permitted to change its stand now. Referring to the reply filed to the application seeking interim relief, it was submitted that there was no such plea raised by the employer that the bar under Section 59 of the Act of 1971 was attracted. The said contention is being raised for the first time in writ jurisdiction. The question whether the bar under Section 59 of the Act of 1971 was attracted or not was a question of fact and not a question of law. In any event, it was submitted that the said bar was not attracted and the employees could not be precluded from pursuing the complaint filed by them. Since the Industrial Court rightly found that a prima facie case had been made out, there was no reason to interfere with that adjudication. It was clear that during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings, lock-out could not be permitted to be commenced. In support of the impugned order, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions :
a] Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation.
2010 AIR (SCW) 1357.
b] Management S.K.F.Bearings India Ltd. Vs. S.M.Ravikumar and others.
2006 (109) FLR 580.
c] C.S.Dixit Vs. Bajaj Tempo Ltd., Pune, (2000) 4 Mh.L.J. 261(FB). ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2020 05:41:46 :::
14 wp3827.19(j) d] Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Yadao and etc. 1985 (2) LLN 322.
e] Kanak Industries Vs. General Labour Union & anr. 2007 (3) Mh.L.J.659. It was thus submitted that the impugned order did not warrant any interference.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have given due consideration to the respective submissions. Since an interlocutory order granting interim relief during the pendency of the complaint is under challenge, it would have to be seen whether the Industrial Court was justified in observing that the employees had made out a prima facie case and that the balance convenience was in their favour to entitle them to that interim relief. It would not be permissible to re- appreciate the entire material on record and if a possible view of the matter is found to have been taken by the Industrial Court, the same would not require interference.
It is seen from the material on record that on 15.04.2019 the employer gave a notice of lock-out. A copy thereof was addressed to the Additional Commissioner of Labour. Pursuant to this notice the Additional Commissioner of Labour on 26.04.2019 issued a notice to both the parties with a view to have a conciliation and to resolve the dispute between them. For the purpose of such conciliation, the employer as well as the employees were called upon to attend his office on 30.04.2019. It can thus be seen that after service of the notice of lock-out on 15.04.2019 on the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, the conciliation proceedings would be deemed to have commenced in view of Section 20 (1) of the Act of 1947. As per the said provision, the conciliation proceedings are deemed to have commenced on the date on which the notice of lock-out under Section 22(2) ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2020 05:41:46 ::: 15 wp3827.19(j) of the Act of 1947 is received by the Conciliation Officer. In the present case, the notice of lock-out has been issued under Section 24 (2) of the Act of 1971. Though the said notice referred to the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act of 1971, it is to be noted that the said provision indicates that a lock-out is illegal if it is commenced during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings either under the Act of 1971 or under the Act of 1947 and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings. The fact remains that by virtue of the notice of lock-out given by the employer, the conciliation proceedings had commenced on the same being served on the Assistant Commissioner of Labour and therefore commencement of the lock-out during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings was not permissible. This prima facie finding recorded by the Industrial Court is found to be based on the aforesaid provisions of both the Acts.
7. As regards the submission made on behalf of the employer that the Unit was not rendering a 'public utility service', it is to be noted that in the earlier complaint filed by the employer itself a stand was taken that its activities fall within the domain of 'public utility service' as defined under Section 2 (n) of the Act of 1947. Hence at this stage, it would not be open for the employer to give go by that stand and raised a plea otherwise. In the light of the stand taken earlier, the provisions of Section 24(2)(b) of the Act of 1971 and Section 22 (2) (d) of the Act of 1947 would be applicable. The mere fact that the energy purchase agreement had come to an end and the proceedings for renewal of that agreement were pending with Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission cannot be a reason to hold otherwise. Moreover, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Kanak Industries ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2020 05:41:46 ::: 16 wp3827.19(j) (supra), the justification of a lock-out cannot be considered by the Industrial Court as the issue of justification does not fall within the purview of the Act of 1971.
8. As regards the submission that by virtue of the provisions of Section 59 of the Act of 1971 the Industrial Court was precluded from entertaining the complaint is concerned, it is seen that such a plea was not raised before the Industrial Court. On the contrary it is the case of the employer that since the Assistant Commissioner of Labour had issued a notice on 26.04.2019, the complaint as filed was not liable to be proceeded with. Prima facie I find that the bar under Section 59 of the Act of 1971 would not be attracted in the light of the decision of the Division Bench in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (supra) wherein it has been held that what is prohibited under Section 59 of the Act of 1971 is the duplication of the proceedings. If a matter which falls within the purview of the Act of 1971 is already pending under the Act of 1947 then the question of such bar being attracted would arise. In the present case, the employees have filed complaint in question on 24.04.2019 under Section 28 of the Act of 1971 seeking declaration that the notice of lock-out dated 15.04.2019 was illegal and amounted to commission of an unfair labour practice. On the other hand the proceedings under the Act of 1947 are based on the notice dated 26.04.2019 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour with a view to have a conciliation between the parties. It therefore does not appear that there is any duplication of the proceedings and on that count, it can be said that such bar as sought to be urged by the employer is not attracted. The observations of the Division Bench in paragraph 19 of the decision in Kanak Industries (supra) also supports this observation. In these facts therefore the ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2020 05:41:46 ::: 17 wp3827.19(j) decision in Association of Engineering (supra) is clearly distinguishable. 9] It is thus found that the learned Judge of the Industrial Court has taken into consideration all the material on record and has thereafter applied the relevant provisions of the Act of 1947 as well as the Act of 1971 while granting interim relief to the employees. I therefore do not find any legal reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Industrial Court. By clarifying the observations made in this judgment are only for the purposes of considering the correctness of the interlocutory order dated 30.04.2019 and by directing the Industrial Court to decide the complaint on its own merits without being influenced by any observations made in this order, the writ petition stands dismissed. The proceedings in the complaint are expedited.
Rule is accordingly discharged leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the present order be not acted upon for a period of four weeks.
This request is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. In the facts of the case, no coercive steps be taken for a period of four weeks pursuant to the present order.
JUDGE Andurkar..
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2020 05:41:46 :::