Reached Daily Limit?

Explore a new way of legal research!

Click Here
Bombay High CourtIndian Cases

Kaushlyabai W/O. Ganpat Jadhav And Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 25 September 1987

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Bombay High Court
Kaushlyabai W/O. Ganpat Jadhav And Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 25 September, 1987
Equivalent citations: (1994)IIILLJ53BOM
Author: S.P. Kurdukar
Bench: S.P. Kurdukar

S.P. Kurdukar, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Joshi, A.G.P. waives notice on behalf) of Respondent No. 1 Mr. Talekar learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of Respondent No. 2. By consent of both the parties this writ petition called out of bearing.

2. The Second Respondent filed a complaint bearing Complaint (ULP) No. 121 of 1987, before the Industrial Court, Aurangabad, alleging that some unfair labour practice has been committed by the first Respondent (Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV). The learned Member of the Tribunal, without notice to the other side, passed an ex parte interim order, which in our opinion is wholly unjustified. It is well settled that ordinarily before any such inter on order is made, the persons who are likely to be affected, be heard, and therefore, in such contingencies, the Court can always without granting the interim relief grant the Rule on such interim application and after hearing both the parties, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. On the present case, the learned Member of the Industrial Court has disregarded this procedure and proceeded to pass the ex parte interim order. In the present petition, the petitioners have made several grievances, including the one that they are senior employees/workers to the thirty six employees/workers, who pursuant to the ex parte interim order would get a better benefit over the petitioners, including the employment. We must make it clear that we have not applied our mind to the rival contentions raised before us in the present writ petition and we leave this issue to be thrashed out by the learned Member of the Industrial Court. But in the meantime some interim arrangement has to be worked out.

3, After hearing the Counsel for the parties, we direct that the practice and procedure followed in connection with the employment of all these employees/workers prior to 27-7-1987, i.e. the date of order will be followed and it is desirable to take into account the seniority of such workers, if prepared. The petitioners be impleaded as party Respondents to the Complaint (ULP) No. 121 of 1987. Mr. Khillare, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, waives notice of the complaint and states that the petitioners will appear either personally or through their Counsel before the Industrial Court.

4. The impugned order of ex parte interim order dated 27-7-1987 is accordingly quashed and set aside and the learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal is directed to hear the parties and dispose of the interim application, made by the second respondent expeditiously in accordance with law. Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.