Khandesh Kamgar Utkarsha ... vs M/S. Raymond Limited, Jalgaon And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2855 Bom

                                             1                        WP No.51/2014

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                             
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            WRIT PETITION NO.51 OF 2014




                                                     
      Khandesh Kamgar Utkarsha Sanghatana
      office - Kashi Baglow, Kolhe Nagar,
      Jalgaon, Ta. And Dist. Jalgaon




                                                    
      Through its General Secretary     =                      PETITIONER

               VERSUS

      1)       M/s Raymond Limited,




                                      
               E-1, MIDC Area, Jalgaon,
               Through its Deputy General 


      2)
               Manager.
                             
               Kamgar Utkarsha Sabha
               C/o M/s Raymond Limited,
                            
               E-1, MIDC, Area, Jalgaon               =        RESPONDENTS 
                                   -----
      Mr.Parag Vijay Barde, Advocate for Petitioner;
      Mr.SR Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
      


      None for Respondent No.2 though served.
   



                                       -----
                                   CORAM :  P.R.BORA, J.

DATE :

15 th

June,2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable

forthwith and heard finally with consent of the

learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

2) The respondent herein had filed a

Complaint before the Industrial Court, Jalgaon

seeking the following reliefs, -

"a) Declare that the respondent No.2 and the Workmen have engaged in the unfair labour

practices complained of.

b) Declare that respondent No.2

has no locus-standi to ig represent the workmen of the factory, and that the same is not a Union Connected with the

factory / industry of the complainant.

c) Direct the respondent No.2 not

to row its board or name plate or gather of the factory premises.

                        d)         Direct   the   respondents,   the 
                                   workmen,                 representatives, 
                                   supporters,                 sympathizers, 





                                   agents,            servants               and/or 

henchmen to cease and desist from such unfair labour practices.

e) Pass any other appropriate restraining orders against the

respondents and others and,

f) Grant consequential relief's to

the complainant including reasonable compensation from the respondents."

3) The matter was contested and the

allegations made in the Complaint were vehemently

opposed by the present petitioner. On going

through the judgment delivered by the Industrial

Court, which has been impugned in the present

petition, it is revealed that the Industrial

Court has recorded a clear finding that the

Complainant, i.e. present Respondent No.1, has

failed in proving the unfair labour practices

alleged in the said Complaint against Respondent

No.2, i.e. present petitioner. In spite of such

finding, the Industrial Court has passed the

impugned order directing Respondent No.2 `to act

within its right and not to disburse industrial

peace in complainant company in any manner,

through its members, supporters, agents,

sympathizers, servants or representatives and not

to indulge in any form of unfair labour practice

against the complainant company.'

4) The order so passed by the Industrial

Court apparently appears unsustainable. When the

Industrial Court had recorded the conclusion

that the complainant has failed in proving the

unfair labour practices as alleged in the

Complaint against Respondent No.2, there was no

reason for the said Court to pass such type of

order. In para 33 of the impugned judgment

though some justification seems to have been

provided by the Industrial Court in passing such

order, the said justification is wholly

unacceptable. The order, therefore, deserves to

be quashed and set aside and the same is

accordingly set aside. Rule is made absolute in

above terms with no order as to costs.

sd/-

(P.R.BORA,J.) bdv/