Bombay High Court
Sachin Ashok Sonawane vs M/S Ahmednagar Forging Limited ... on 28 September, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8598 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12615 OF 2016
Ahmednagar Forging Limited
(Now Metalyst Forging Limited)
B-20, Five Star Industrial Area, ... Petitioner
Shendra, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. (Ori. First Party)
Versus
1) Ganesh Dnyandeo Dongare,
Age : 24 years, Occu: Nil,
R/o. C/o. Raghunath B. Wagh,
H.No. 2/5-11, Ramnagar, Cidco,
Aurangabad. (Ori. 2nd Party)
2) The Deputy Labour Commissioner,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
3) The Collector,
Aurangabad, District Aurangabad.
4) The Circle Officer, Karmad,
Tq. and District Aurangabad. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8599 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12624 OF 2016
khs/SEPT.2016/8598-d
Ahmednagar Forging Limited
(Now Metalyst Forging Limited)
B-20, Five Star Industrial Area, ... Petitioner
Shendra, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. (Ori. First Party)
Versus
1) Rajendra Bhimrao Ugale,
Age : Major, Occu: Nil,
Dist. Jalna.
R/o. Karjat, Tq. Ambad,
(Ori. 2nd Party)
2) The Deputy Labour Commissioner,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
3) The Collector,
Aurangabad, District Aurangabad.
4) The Circle Officer, Karmad,
Tq. and District Aurangabad. ... Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8600 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12616 OF 2016
Ahmednagar Forging Limited
(Now Metalyst Forging Limited)
B-20, Five Star Industrial Area, ... Petitioner
Shendra, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. (Ori. First Party)
khs/SEPT.2016/8598-d
Versus
1) Ramchandra Abasaheb Adhav,
Age : 32 years, Occu: Nil,
R/o. 5/9/150, Pasaydan Building,
Shivaji Colony, N-2, Cidco,
Mukundwadi, Aurangabad. (Ori. 2nd Party)
2)
The Deputy Labour Commissioner,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
3) The Collector,
Aurangabad, District Aurangabad.
4) The Circle Officer, Karmad,
Tq. and District Aurangabad. ... Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8601 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12617 OF 2016
Ahmednagar Forging Limited
(Now Metalyst Forging Limited)
B-20, Five Star Industrial Area, ... Petitioner
Shendra, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. (Ori. First Party)
Versus
khs/SEPT.2016/8598-d
1) Sachin Ashok Sonawane,
Age : 25 years, Occu: Nil,
R/o. H.No. 10, S.45,
Near Mukundwadi Railway Station,
Vishrantinagar, Aurangabad. (Ori. 2nd Party)
2) The Deputy Labour Commissioner,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
3) The Collector,
Aurangabad, District Aurangabad.
4) The Circle Officer, Karmad,
Tq. and District Aurangabad. ... Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8602 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13064 OF 2016
Ahmednagar Forging Limited
(Now Metalyst Forging Limited)
B-20, Five Star Industrial Area, ... Petitioner
Shendra, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. (Ori. First Party)
Versus
1) Shyam Tulsiram Dhangare,
Age : 25 years, Occu: Nil,
khs/SEPT.2016/8598-d
R/o. Plot No. 535, No. 65/P,
Ravigandhi Nagar, M. Wada,
Aurangabad. (Ori. 2nd Party)
2) The Deputy Labour Commissioner,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
3) The Collector,
Aurangabad, District Aurangabad.
4)
The Circle Officer, Karmad,
Tq. and District Aurangabad. ... Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8603 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12618 OF 2016
Ahmednagar Forging Limited
(Now Metalyst Forging Limited)
B-20, Five Star Industrial Area, ... Petitioner
Shendra, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. (Ori. First Party)
Versus
1) Mahendra Laxman Shrikhande,
Age : Major, Occu: Nil,
R/o. Sanjay Nagar, Galli No. 6,
Mukundwadi, Aurangabad. (Ori. 2nd Party)
2) The Deputy Labour Commissioner,
khs/SEPT.2016/8598-d
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
3) The Collector,
Aurangabad, District Aurangabad.
4) The Circle Officer, Karmad,
Tq. and District Aurangabad. ... Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8604 OF 2016
ig WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12627 OF 2016
Ahmednagar Forging Limited
(Now Metalyst Forging Limited)
B-20, Five Star Industrial Area, ... Petitioner
Shendra, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. (Ori. First Party)
Versus
1) Samadhan Machindra Ghorpade,
Age : Major, Occu: Nil,
R/o. Lamkana, Post Naigavan,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. (Ori. 2nd Party)
2) The Deputy Labour Commissioner,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
3) The Collector,
Aurangabad, District Aurangabad.
khs/SEPT.2016/8598-d
4) The Circle Officer, Karmad,
Tq. and District Aurangabad. ... Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8605 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12622 OF 2016
Ahmednagar Forging Limited
(Now Metalyst Forging Limited)
B-20, Five Star Industrial Area,
ig ... Petitioner
Shendra, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. (Ori. First Party)
Versus
1) Vishnu Ramesh Jaibhaye,
Age : 26 years, Occu: Nil,
R/o. Survey No. 25, House No. 33,
Jaibhavani Nagar, N-4, Cidco,
Aurangabad. (Ori. 2nd Party)
2) The Deputy Labour Commissioner,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
3) The Collector,
Aurangabad, District Aurangabad.
4) The Circle Officer, Karmad,
Tq. and District Aurangabad. ... Respondents.
khs/SEPT.2016/8598-d
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8606 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12619 OF 2016
Ahmednagar Forging Limited
(Now Metalyst Forging Limited)
B-20, Five Star Industrial Area, ... Petitioner
Shendra, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. (Ori. First Party)
Versus
1) Vijay Kundlik Thombare,
Age : Major, Occu: Nil,
R/o. At post Adgaon Pimpri Raja,
Shendra, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. (Ori. 2nd Party)
2) The Deputy Labour Commissioner,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
3) The Collector,
Aurangabad, District Aurangabad.
4) The Circle Officer, Karmad,
Tq. and District Aurangabad. ... Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8607 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12621 OF 2016
khs/SEPT.2016/8598-d
Ahmednagar Forging Limited
(Now Metalyst Forging Limited)
B-20, Five Star Industrial Area, ... Petitioner
Shendra, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. (Ori. First Party)
Versus
1) Shivaji Ananda Chaudhary,
Age : 24 years, Occu: Nil,
R/o. C/o. Kamal Rajendra Anande,
Plot No. 227, Survey No. 25,
Jai Bhavani Nagar, Aurangabad,
Tq. & District Aurangabad. (Ori. 2nd Party)
2) The Deputy Labour Commissioner,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
3) The Collector,
Aurangabad, District Aurangabad.
4) The Circle Officer, Karmad,
Tq. and District Aurangabad. ... Respondents
Mr.U.S.Malte, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.B.R.Kaware, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr.P.N.Kutti, AGP for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 28/09/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
khs/SEPT.2016/8598-d
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
consent of the parties.
2. While issuing notice to the respondents in these matters, I have
formulated the issues, which need to be considered. It would be
apposite to reproduce the order passed by this Court on 10/08/2016
hereinbelow :-
"1. The petitioner / management in all these matters has challenged
the purported ex-parte judgment and award as well as the order
passed by the Labour Court dismissing the Misc. Application for
restoration of the original reference proceedings, as set out in the
prayer clauses at paragraphs 16B and 16C of the memo of the petition.
2. It is further submitted that revenue recovery certificates (RRC)
under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have been
issued. Going by the impugned award, each of the respondents herein
would be entitled roughly, for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards
backwages. It is further stated that the petitioner / management has
not implemented the impugned awards.
3. Shri Malte, learned Advocate has raised, primarily, the following
three issues:-
(a) Whether the impugned awards could be sustained,
considering that the same have been passed without assigning
any reason and only relying upon the statement of the
khs/SEPT.2016/8598-d
workmen?
(b) Whether the impugned orders rejecting the Misc.
Applications for recalling the award, have been rightly passed
by the Labour Court concluding that it had become 'functus
officio' after 30 days of the publication of the award?
(c) Whether the Labour Court would become 'functus officio'
in the light of the verdict of the Honourable Supreme Court in the
matter of Radhakrishna Mani Tripathi Vs. L.H.Patel [2009 (3)
Mah.L.J. 767]?
4. Considering the above, issue notice before admission to the
respondents, returnable on 2.9.2016.
5. Learned AGP waives service for respondents 2 to 4.
6. I find that the issue raised by the petitioners by placing reliance
upon the judgment in the case of Radhakrishna (supra) can be
considered keeping in view that the judgment of the Honourable
Supreme Court in the matter of Sangham Tape Company V/s Hansraj
[(2005) 8 SCC 331], was not cited before the Honourable Supreme
Court in the Radhakrishna's case (supra).
7. Till the next date of hearing in this matter, on the condition that
the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs. One Lakh
and Fifty Thousand/-) in each of these Writ Petitions, the respondents
are restrained from resorting to coercive steps for seeking the execution
khs/SEPT.2016/8598-d
and implementation of the impugned awards.
8. The said amount shall be deposited in this Court, on or before
26.8.2016. Request for extension of time will not be entertained.
Failure to deposit the said amount shall lead to the vacating of the ad-
interim protection without reference to this Court.
9. The petitioner shall deposit a copy of the petition paper book for
issuing notice within one week from today, failing which the ad-interim
protection shall stand vacated without reference to the Court."
3. I find it appropriate to first deal with the issue at clause "C"
reproduced above as to, "Whether the Labour Court would become
'functus officio' in the light of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Radhakrishna Mani Tripathi Vs. L.H.Patel
[2009(3) Mah.L.J.767]?"
4. The undisputed factors are as under :-
[a] The respondents are party to the reference proceedings before
the Labour Court, Aurangabad wherein they have challenged
their individual terminations dated 15/02/2014 and have
prayed for reinstatement with continuity of service and full
back wages.
[b] By the impugned award dated 24/04/2015, the reference
proceedings were allowed keeping in view that the petitioner /
first party management failed to submit its written statement,
khs/SEPT.2016/8598-d
No W.S. order was passed on 18/02/2014 and the reference
cases were allowed purely on the basis of the affidavits filed by
the respondents.
[c] The awards at issue were published on 22/06/2015 by the
Labour Court in accordance with the Industrial Disputes,
Bombay (Rules), 1957.
[d] On 09/09/2015, which is after about 75 days from the date of
the publication of the award, the petitioner filed Misc.
application for setting aside the awards.
[e]
By the impugned order dated 08/07/2016, the misc.
applications filed by the petitioner were rejected.
5. Mr.Malte, learned Advocate has placed reliance upon an
unreported order of this Court dated 06/09/2010 passed in WP
No.8682/2009 in the matter of Rajman Shrikrishna Morya Vs.
Marshal Security Pvt.Ltd., by which this Court concluded that as the
second party workman himself was absent, no steps were taken and
the case was dismissed, in this backdrop, there was no award at all
and in the absence of any award, the misc. applications filed by the
workmen could have been entertained. Since the facts in the cases
in hand are distinguishable, the view taken in the judgment dated
06/09/2010 (supra), would be of no assistance to the petitioner.
6. Mr.Malte has placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Radhakrishna Mani Tripathi
khs/SEPT.2016/8598-d
Vs. L.H.Patel and another, [2009(3) Mh.L.J. 767 = 2009(1)
Bom.C.R.72] to support his contention that the Court under the
I.D.Act, 1947 would not be rendered functus officio considering Rule
26 of the 1957 Rules and Section 17-A of the I.D.Act. The Hon'ble
Apex Court has held in paragraph No.18 and 19 as under :-
7. From the conclusions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reproduced
above, it is clear that Rule 22 under the Central Rules and Rule 26(2)
of the Bombay Rules were considered in the light of Section 17-A.
Reliance was placed on the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the matter of Anil Sood Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court
II, 2001(10) S.C.C.534 and considering the observations in paragraph
Nos.6,7 and 8 in Anil Sood (supra), the Hon'be Apex Court concluded
that there was no conflict in between Section 17-A and Rule 26(2).
8. I find that the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the matter of Sangham Tape Company Vs. Hans Raj [(2005)9 SCC
331] was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein
the judgment in the matter of Anil Sood (supra) was clarified and
distinguished. It was specifically held in Sangham Tape (supra) that
Anil Sood (supra) did not lay down the law to the contrary and an
application for setting aside an award, made after 30 days from the
khs/SEPT.2016/8598-d
date of publication of the award, cannot be accepted.
9. Paragraph No.7 to 12 of the Sangham Tape judgment (supra)
reads as under :-
"7. This Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd., Vs. Central Gobernment
Industrial Tribunal and others [(1980) Supp. SCC 420] held that
the Tribunal does not become functus officio provided an
application for setting aside the award is filed within thirty days
of publication of award having regard to the provisions
contained in Section 11 of the Act and Rules 22 and 24 of the
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 stating :(SCC pp.425-
26, para 14)
"14. The contention that the Tribunal had become functus
officio and, therefore, had no jurisdiction to set aside the
ex parte award and that the Central Government alone
could set it aside, does not commend to us. Sub-section
(3) of Section 20 of the Act provides that the proceedings
before the Tribunal would be deemed to continue till the
date on which the award becomes enforceable under
Section17-A. Under Section17-A of the Act, an award
becomes enforceable on the expiry of 30 days from the
date of its publication under Section 17. The proceedings
with regard to a reference under Section 10 of the Act are,
therefore, not deemed to be concluded until the expiry of
30 days from the publication of the award. Till then the
Tribunal retains jurisdiction over the dispute referred to it
for adjudication and up to that date it has the power to
khs/SEPT.2016/8598-d
entertain an application in connection with such dispute.
That stage is not reached till the award becomes
enforceable under Section 17-A. In the instant case, the
Tribunal made the ex parte award on December 9, 1976.
That award was published by the Central Government in
the Gazette of India dated December 25, 1976. The
application for setting aside the ex parte award was filed
by respondent 3, acting on behalf of respondents 5 to 17
on January 19, 1977 i. e, before the expiry of 30 days of
its publication and was, therefore, rightly entertained by
the Tribunal."
8. The said decision is, therefore, an authority for the
proposition that while an Industrial Court will have jurisdiction
to set aside an ex parte award but having regard to the
provision contained in Section 17-A of the Act, an application
therefor must be filed before the expiry of 30 days from the
publication thereof. Till then Tribunal retains jurisdiction over the
dispute referred to it for adjudication and only upto that date, it
has the power to entertain an application in connection with
such dispute.
9. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, the High Court
found as of fact that the application for setting aside the award
was filed before the Labor Court after one month of the
publication of the award.
10. In view of this Court's decision in Grindlays Bank (supra),
such jurisdiction could be exercised by the Labour Court within
a limited time frame, namely, within thirty days from the date of
khs/SEPT.2016/8598-d
publication of the award. Once an award becomes enforceable
in terms of Section 17-A of the Act, the Labour Court or the
Tribunal, as the case may be, does not retain any jurisdiction in
relation to setting aside of an award passed by it. In other
words, upon the expiry of 30 days from the date of publication
of the award in the gazette, the same having become
enforceable, the Labour Court would become functus officio.
11. Grindlays Bank (supra) has been followed in Satnam
Verma vs. Union of India and J.K.Synthetics Ltd. V. CCE.
12. This Court in Anil Sood (supra) did not lay down any law
to the contrary. The contention raised on the part of Mr. Jain to
the effect that in fact in that case an application for setting aside
an award was made long after 30 days cannot be accepted for
more than one reason. Firstly, a fact situation obtaining in one
case cannot be said to be a precedent for another. [See Mehboob
Dawood Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra]. Secondly, from a
perusal of the said decision, it does not appear that any date of
publication of the award was mentioned therein so as to
establish that even on fact, the application was made 30 days
after the expiry of publication of the award. Furthermore, the
said decision appears to have been rendered on concession."
10. This Court in the matter of Dnyaneshwar Anantrao Kulkarni
Vs. Supdt. Engineer, Public Works Division, Osmanabad, [2016(2)
Mh.L.J. 144] has considered the effect of Rule 26 and Rule 31-A in
the light of Section 17 and 17-A and has concluded that Rule 26(2) is
khs/SEPT.2016/8598-d
inconsistent with Section 17 and 17-A of the I.D.Act. The decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Grindlays' Bank (supra) and Sangham
Tape Company (supra) was followed.
11. Considering the law as above, the issue at Clause 'C' framed in
this matter stands answered. The Labour Court had therefore
become funtus officio in the light of the view taken by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the matter of Grindlays' Bank (supra) and Sangham
Tape Co. (supra). Consequentially, the issue framed at Clause 'B' is
rendered redundant as the impugned order dated 08/07/2016,
entertaining the misc. applications by the Labour Court, was an
exercise in futility as the Labour Court was rendered functus officio.
Hence, the said judgments impugned in this petition, are quashed
and set aside and the misc. applications filed by the petitioner are
rejected for being untenable.
12. In so far as the challenge of the petitioner to the judgments of
the Labour Court dated 24/04/2015 in Ref.(IDA) No.61/2014,
66/2014, 63/2014, 64/2014, 62/2014 and 27/04/2015 in Ref.(IDA)
Nos.65/2014, 67/2014, 68/2014, 70/2014, 69/2014 are concerned,
the petitioner strenuously submits that these awards are based only
on the affidavit filed by the respondents. Though the petitioner in all
these matters before the Labour Court had engaged an advocate, the
khs/SEPT.2016/8598-d
matters virtually went unrepresented. No written statement was
filed. The affidavits filed by the respondents were not subjected to
cross-examination and as such the Labour Court simply relied upon
the affidavits of the workers and allowed the reference cases.
13. It is further submitted that the termination orders dated
15/02/2014 were served upon each of these respondents. Reasons
were set out in the said orders indicating as to why it was not
possible for the management to conduct domestic enquiries under
the Model Standing Orders. Considering the explosive situation, the
petitioner decided to dispense with conducting the enquiry. When
this order was before the Labour Court, notwithstanding that the
petitioner was not participating in the proceedings, the Labour court
should have considered that the respondents/workmen were
dismissed for having committed grave and serious misconducts.
Merely by concluding that they have completed 240 days in
continuous service and Section 25-F was not complied with, the
Labour Court could not have granted reinstatement.
14. Mr.Kaware, learned Advocate for the respondents/workers
submits that there are about 700 workers working with the
petitioners. Only 150 workers are permanent. On 30/11/2013, a
khs/SEPT.2016/8598-d
settlement was signed by the Management and only 58 workers were
granted coverage and benefits of the settlement. 90 workers joined
the Bhartiya Kamgar Union on 02/02/2014. Immediately, 20
workers were transferred. This court has delivered a verdict and has
set aside those transfer orders. These are the reasons due to which
the petitioner terminated 10 workers, who are respondents herein, on
15/02/2014 without conducting an enquiry.
15. He further submits that the Labour Court issued notices to the
petitioner in all these matters and after service, proceeded to decide
the reference cases due to the non co-operation of the petitioner.
Even in conciliation proceedings, the petitioner did not co-operate
and tried to frustrate the workers. In this backdrop, he submits that
these petitions be dismissed with costs.
16. In the alternative, by placing reliance upon the judgment of the
Gujarath High Court in the matter of Bharat Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
Vs. K.L.Baria, Judge, Labour Court, (1998) 1 Guj.Law Reporter 850,
he submits that if this Court is inclined to remand the reference
cases for a fresh adjudication, subsistence allowance be paid to each
of these respondents till the cases are decided because the employer
would make an attempt to delay the matter and tire out the workers.
khs/SEPT.2016/8598-d
17. In the light of the submissions of the learned Advocates, I have
gone through the impugned awards. It is only in a short paragraph
by way of reasons that the Labour Court has allowed the reference
cases on the ground that the workers had filed an affidavit and hence
there is no reason to disbelieve their contentions as the employer has
not contradicted the evidence.
18. In my view, the Labour Court should have considered the
reasons set out in the order of termination and based on the same, it
should have viewed the case more seriously. Merely because the
respondent has not led evidence, cannot be a ground for allowing the
reference cases. Moreover, the Labour Court has concluded that
since the workers have completed 240 days in employment, the
termination is bad in law as Section 25-F of the I.D. Act,1947 was not
complied with. The issue before the Labour Court was not about
continuous service u/s 25-B and much less as regards Section 25-F.
Issue was as regards the petitioner being unable to conduct an
enquiry on account of the purported explosive situation and hence
the workers were dismissed by way of punishment.
19. The claim of the respondents for subsistence allowance during
khs/SEPT.2016/8598-d
the pendency and adjudication of the reference cases, cannot be
entertained in view of the law laid down in Mumbai Cricket
Association Vs. Pramod G.Shinde, 2011 (1) CLR 745.
20. Considering the above, I find that the impugned order deserves
to be set aside by imposing costs upon the petitioner/Management
since due to its laxity and negligence, the proceedings before the
Labour Court have been concluded by the non-participation of the
petitioner. While issuing notice, the petitioner was directed to deposit
Rs.1,50,000/- in each case. The amount has been deposited.
21. In the light of the above, these petitions are partly allowed. The
impugned awards dated 24/04/2015 and 27/04/2015 are quashed
and set aside. All these reference (IDA) Nos. 61/2014, 62/2014,
63/2014, 64/2014, 65/2014, 66/2014, 67/2014 68/2014, 69/2014,
70/2014 are remanded to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication on
the following conditions :-
[a] The amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, deposited by the petitioner in
each of these cases, will be withdrawn by the petitioner with
accrued interest and the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- shall be
deposited before the Labour Court in each of these reference
cases on or before 15/10/2016.
[b] The litigating sides shall appear before the Labour Court,
Aurangabad on 14/10/2016 and formal notices need not be
issued.
khs/SEPT.2016/8598-d
[c] Each of these respondents/workmen shall withdraw
Rs.25,000/- from the Labour Court without conditions as costs
for the rigours of litigation suffered by them on account of the
remanding of these matters.
[d] If the abovesaid directions for depositing money are not
complied with by the petitioner on or before 15/10/2016, the
Labour Court shall strike of the defence of the petitioner and
thereafter decide the reference cases on the material available
before it.
[e] If the above stated conditions are complied with, the
petitioner / Management shall file their written statements
alongwith documents as well as a charge sheet keeping in view
its contentions, on or before 21/11/2016, failing which the
Labour Court shall pass 'No Written Statement Order' and
shall proceed further.
[f] After the compliance of the above directions, considering that
the petitioner desires to conduct an enquiry before the Labour
Court, the recording of evidence shall begin at the instance of
the petitioner.
[g] The Labour Court shall endeavour to decide the reference
cases, as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before
the end of December 2017.
22. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
23. In the light of the above, the civil applications do not survive
and stand disposed of.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/SEPT.2016/8598-d
