JUDGMENT

MAJMUDAR, J. - Leave granted.

2. By consent of learned advocates of the parties, the appeal is finally heard and is being disposed of by this judgment.

3. The short question involved in this appeal centres around the jurisdiction of the Labour Court functioning under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) regarding entertaining of complaints filed under Section 28(1) of the Maharashtra Act in connection with contemplated discharge or dismissal of the employees alleged to be resorted to by the employer by way of unfair labour practice, as mentioned in Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Act. The Labour Court in which the complaints were filed took the view that such complaints were not maintainable as the actual orders of discharge or dismissal were not yet passed by the employer. The learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court confirmed that view, but the Appellate Bench of the High Court allowed the writ appeal filed by the respondent-workmen and took a contrary view. That is how the employer is before us in this appeal.

Background facts

4. A few relevant facts are required to be noted at the outset. The predecessor of the present appellant-Company, Hindustan Lever Limited, the Tata Oil Mills Company Limited served charge-sheets on Respondents 1 to 9 for certain alleged misconduct. Respondents 1 to 9 instituted Complaint (ULPs) Nos. 90 to 98 of 1989 before the Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Bombay, alleging therein, inter alia, that the appellants predecessor company had engaged in commission of unfair labour practices referred to in Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Act. It was the case of the respondents in the said complaints that in pursuance of the show-cause notices, inquiry was being conducted and they apprehended that their services would be terminated. The respondents also filed applications for interim relief under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Act seeking interim injunction restraining the employer-Company from continuing the unfair labour practices complained of and from terminating the services of the respondents. The Labour Court passed an ex parte injunction restraining the employer-Company from terminating the services of the respondents.

5. The employer-Company filed its written statements in these complaints and among others it was contended that complaints themselves were not maintainable and were premature and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with such complaints as jurisdiction of the Labour Court could not be invoked under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Act as long as the proceedings commenced by the employer-Company were not terminated by orders of discharge or dismissal of the respondents concerned. The employer-Company also resisted the complaints on merits.

6. The Labour Court by its order dated 10-8-1989, upheld the preliminary objection of the employer-Company and held that the complaints were not maintainable at that stage. The Labour Court followed the decision of the learned Single Judge of the High Court sitting at Nagpur in the case of Divisional Commr., M.S.R.T.C. v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Court of Maharashtra, which had taken a similar view.

7. The respondent-workmen filed Writ Petition No. 2286 of 1989 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge of the High Court summarily dismissed the same on 21-8-1989.

8. The respondents carried the matter before the Division Bench of the High Court in appeal, being Appeal No. 952 of 1989. The Division Bench consisting of M. C. Pendse and S. N. Kapadia, JJ. allowed the said appeal by its decision dated 6-3-1992, wherein Pendse, J. speaking for the Division Bench, took the view that the respondents complaints were not premature and the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain such complaints filed before the actual orders of dismissal or termination were pass