Bombay High Court
M/S Konkan Agro Marine Industries ... vs Akhil Maharashtra Akyavardhak ... on 29 November, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.9431 OF 2016
M/s Konkan Agro Marine Industries
Pvt.Ltd., Babargaon, Tal.Gangapur,
Dist.Aurangabad, Through its
Factory Manager - PETITIONER
VERSUS
Akhil Maharashtra Akyavardhak
Sarva Shramik Sanghatana,
Arunodaya Niwas,
Plot No.191/192, Galnimb,
Tal.Gangapur, Dist.Aurangabad - RESPONDENT
Mr.S.V.Dankh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.M.S.Indani, Advocate for the respondent.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 29/11/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
consent of the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court dated
23/01/2014 by which reinstatement has been directed by way of
interim relief. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the judgment of
the Industrial Court dated 28/06/2016 by which the Revision Petition
No.11/2014 has been dismissed.
khs/NOV.2016/9431-d
3. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for
the respective sides. The petitioner reiterates that the issue as to
whether final relief can be granted at an interim stage and that too after
nine years of the pendency of the complaint, needs to be adjudicated
upon by this Court. The learned Advocate for the respondent submits
that this petition deserves to be dismissed on merits. I do not find any
reason to keep this petition pending solely on the ground that 63
workers involved in Complaint (ULP) No.9/2005 are waiting for an
adjudication of their complaint for the last 11 years.
4. The Labour Court, by the impugned order dated 23/01/2014, has
directed the reinstatement of 63 workers who have been orally
terminated on 29/11/2004. In my view, instead of spending the time of
the Court on the interim application when the complaint was pending
for 9 years, ends of justice would have been met if the Labour Court
would have decided the main complaint itself. It, however, appears from
the record that the respondent/Union insisted on a decision on the
interim application.
5. An application for interim relief under section 30(2) of the 1971
Act is aimed at granting some relief to an employee during the
pendency of the complaint. Such relief cannot be granted normally in
the matters of disciplinary proceedings, keeping in view the law laid
khs/NOV.2016/9431-d
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Workmen of Motipur
Sugar Factory Private Ltd.,Vs. The Motipur Sugar Factory Private
Limited, AIR 1965 SC 1803. So also, it is settled law that interim relief
cannot lead to a grant of final relief at an interim stage. Granting
reinstatement in service during the pendency of the complaint would
practically amount to grant of final relief.
6.
The reliance placed by the respondent on the judgment delivered
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Kishan Singh Vs. Executive
Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Rohtak
(Haryana), 2010(2) Supreme 318 would be of no assistance to the
respondent since the issue before the Hon'ble Apex Court was with
reference to a final judgment and award delivered by the Labour Court.
7. In my view, grant of interim relief and that too of a final nature
after 9 years of the pendency of the ULP complaint is not only
impracticable, but unheard of. As such, the Industrial Court as well as
the Labour Court have erred in concluding that the respondents /
employees deserve to be reinstated in service during the pendency of
the complaint.
8. Keeping the interest of the respondent / worker in focus, I deem
it appropriate to direct the Labour Court to decide Complaint (ULP)
khs/NOV.2016/9431-d
No.9/2005 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of
8 (eight) months from today. The litigating sides shall render co-operation
to the Labour Court and shall refrain from seeking adjournments on
unreasonable and trivial grounds. Needless to state, the prayer of the
complainants seeking reinstatement with continuity and full back wages
shall be considered by the Labour Court on its own merits.
9. As such, this petition is partly allowed. The impugned order of the
Labour Court dated 23/01/2014 is set aside. Consequentially, the
judgment of the Industrial Court dated 28/06/2016 is quashed and set
aside and the Revision (ULP) No.11/2014 stands disposed of in the light of
the directions set out in the foregoing paragraphs.
10. In the event the complainant / Union makes a request for
withdrawal of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which is deposited before the
Labour Court and kept in fixed deposit, the Labour Court may consider
the said request provided it is convinced that the Respondent is delaying
the matter. Needless to state, the said application shall then be decided
on its own merits considering the balance of convenience of the parties.
11. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/NOV.2016/9431-d
