Bombay High Court
M/S Jasra Graphics Pvt Ltd And Anr vs Sunil Parsekar on 24 August, 2016
Bench: R.M. Savant
(907) wp-1371.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1371 OF 2016
1] M/s. Jasra Graphics Pvt. Ltd. ]
a private limited company registered under the]
provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having its ]
registered address at Unit No.7, Prabhadevi ]
Industrial Estate, 408, Veer Savarkar Marg, ]
Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400 025 ]
]
2] Mr. Gyan Jasra, ]
an adult, Indian inhabitant, the director of ]
the Petitioner No.1, having his office address ]
at Unit No.7, Prabhadevi Industrial Estate, ]
408, Veer Savarkar Marg, ig ]
Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400 025 ]..... Petitioners.
versus
Mr. Sunil Parsekar, ]
an adult, Indian inhabitant, having his address ]
at Chawl 6/2, Bhavani Shankar Road, ]
Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400 028. ]..... Respondent.
Mr. Ajay Yadav i/by S K Legal Associates for the Petitioner.
Mr. Prashant C Kamble for the Respondent.
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J.
DATE : 24th August 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1 Rule, considering the nature of the challenge, made returnable
forthwith and heard.
2 The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order
dated 09/03/2016 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court,
Mumbai by which order the Revision Application (ULP) No.25/2015 came to
lgc 1 of 5
(907) wp-1371.16
be dismissed and resultantly the judgment and order dated 22/12/2014 passed
by the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No.203/2011 came to be confirmed.
3 It is not necessary to burden this Order with unnecessary details
having regard to the nature of the directions to be issued. The Respondent
herein had filed Complaint (ULP) No.203/2011 alleging unfair labour practice
on the part of the Petitioners. As indicated above the said Complaint (ULP)
No.203/2011 came to be allowed by the Labour Court by the judgment and
Order dated 22/12/2014 and a declaration came to be issued that the
Petitioners herein who were the Respondents in the said Complaint had
committed unfair labour practices under item 1(a), (b), (d) and (f) of MRTU &
PULP Act , 1971. A further direction was issued that the Petitioners herein i.e.
the Respondents in the Complaint to reinstate the complainant by giving
continuity of service with 50% back wages from 30/09/2011 onwards.
4 Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 22/12/2014, the
Petitioners herein filed Revision Application (ULP) No.25/2015. In the said
Revision Application the Petitioners herein filed an Application (Exhibit C-2)
for stay of the judgment and order dated 22/12/2014 passed by the Labour
Court. The said Application was heard from time to time since its filing. The
roznama of the said Revision Application records the said fact especially
against the roznama for 01/02/2016, 22/02/2016, 29/02/2016 and
lgc 2 of 5
(907) wp-1371.16
01/03/2016. The learned Member of the Industrial Court instead of passing
an order on the Application (Exhibit C-2) for interim relief, has dismissed the
Revision Application itself filed by the Petitioners though the roznama indicates
that the Revision Application was never fixed for hearing and neither did the
parties consent to the Revision Application being heard.
5 The Petitioners thereafter filed an Application (Exhibit C-9) for
stay of the judgment and order dated 09/03/2016 passed by the Industrial
Court dismissing the Revision Application. The said Application (Exhibit C-9)
was opposed to on behalf of the Respondent herein by filing reply. It seems
that the said Application (Exhibit C-9) was heard during which hearing the
Petitioners herein withdrew the said Application (Exhibit C-9). The Industrial
Court, as the roznama of the date 11/03/2016 discloses, passed the following
order :-
"Permitted to withdraw if review is tenable he may
prefer Review application"
A review application can be filed in terms of Section 30(2) of the MRTU &
PULP Act, 1971 only against an interim order and not against the final order
passed in the proceedings. Hence in the instant case, the Petitioners could not
have filed a review application and have therefore chosen to file the instant
Petition.
lgc 3 of 5
(907) wp-1371.16
6 The principal ground on which the said order dated 09/03/2016 is
challenged is the ground that the Industrial Court was all along hearing the
application (Exhibit C-2) filed for stay but has dismissed the Revision
Application itself. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners
herein that the Industrial Court could not have done so without putting the
parties to notice and without giving proper opportunity to the parties to
prosecute the Revision Application itself.
Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Shri
Kamble does not dispute the fact of the stay application being heard by the
Industrial Court. However, the learned counsel for the Respondent would
submit that the Petitioners were heard on the Application (Exhibit C-9) which
they had filed for stay of the said order dated 09/03/2016 which they have
chosen to withdraw and the Petitioners therefore cannot now be permitted to
contend that though the application for stay (Exhibit C-2) was heard, the
Industrial Court has decided the Revision Application itself.
8 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in my view, the
Industrial Court has erred in deciding the Revision Application itself when
what was heard by it was the application (Exhibit C-2) which was filed for stay.
The Industrial Court could have undoubtedly decided the Revision Application
if it had put the parties to notice in that respect and had given an opportunity
lgc 4 of 5
(907) wp-1371.16
to the parties. However, the roznama of the said Revision Application does not
indicated that any such course of action was followed by the Industrial Court.
Since the Revision Application has been decided when in fact the Industrial
Court had heard only the application for stay, the impugned order can be said
to be passed by the Industrial Court without affording proper opportunity to
the Petitioners. The impugned order can be said to be vitiated on the said
ground and the matter is required to be relegated back to the Industrial Court.
Hence the impugned order dated 09/03/2016 is required to be quashed and
set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside and the matter is relegated
back to the Industrial Court for a de-novo consideration of the Revision
Application. However, on remand the Industrial Court would now decide the
Revision Application itself latest by 30/11/2016. The learned counsel for the
parties are agreeable to the said course of action. Till then the order passed by
Labour Court dated 22/12/2014 would stand stayed. Needless to state that
the contentions of the parties on merits are kept open for being urged before
the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court would decide the Revision
Application on its own merits and in accordance with law. The above Writ
Petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is accordingly made absolute to the
aforesaid extent with parties to bear their respective costs of the Petition.
[R.M.SAVANT, J]
lgc 5 of 5
