IMPORTANT POINT
Employer not complying with award attaining finality and indulging in continuing unfair labour practice is liable to imposition of cost.

Judgment

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

The appellant-employer has questioned the correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 29.1.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.28316 of 2009 in affirming the judgment and order dated 15.6.2009 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.3135 of 2009 whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. The writ petition was filed by the appellant-employer herein against the order dated 16.4.2007 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in complaint (ULP) No.588 of 1996 filed by the respondent-workman.

2. The brief facts of the case in nutshell are stated as under :

The respondent-workman filed the complaint (ULP) No. 339 of 1987 before the Labour Court, Mumbai under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (“the Act” in short) questioning the legality of the order of his termination from service and alleging that it amounts to an unfair

labour practice by the appellant and prayed for setting aside the same and passing an award of reinstatement and continuity of service with full back wages.

3. The Labour Court vide its award dated 25.3.1996 found the appellant guilty of unfair labour practice under Items 1(a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the Act, and allowed the said complaint directing the appellant to reinstate the respondent with full back wages and continuity of service.

4. Against the said award, the appellant filed Revision Application No. 72 of 1996 before the Industrial Court which was rejected vide order dated 8.10.1996

5. Being aggrieved of the said award, the appellant filed Writ Petition (C) No. 6064 of 1996 before the High Court and the same was dismissed by the High Court on 2.4.2004 for default.

6. For restoration of the Writ Petition (C) No.6064 of 1996 the appellant filed Civil Application NO. 1104 of 2009 and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 23.6.2010.

7. The said order not being challenged by the appellant the award dated 25.3.1996 passed by the Labour Court in complaint (ULP) No. 339 of 1987 has attained finality.

8. The said award passed in the complaint having not been implemented, the second inning was initiated by the respondent-workman by filing a Complaint No. (ULP) 588 of 1996 before the Industrial Court seeking for implementation of the award dated 25.3.1996 passed by the Labour Court in the Complaint (ULP) No. 339 of 1987.

9. The Industrial Court vide order dated 16.4.2007 allowed the Complaint (ULP) No. 588 of 1996 and directed the appellant to comply with award dated 25.3.1996 of the Labour Court.

10. The appellant being aggrieved by the said order, filed Writ Petition (C) No. 3135 of 2009 against the said order before the High Court urging various grounds.

11. The learned single Judge vide order dated 15.6.2009 dismissed Writ Petition (C) No. 3135 of 2009 after adverting to the factual aspects and legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties and rightly rejected the plea of alleged closure of appellant’s Bombay Office by recording its reasons which order was affirmed by the High Court in the earlier writ petition proceedings, thereby the plea that Bombay Office of the appellant was closed was not accepted and the same was concluded in the earlier round of litigation between the parties.

12. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15.6.2009, the appellant filed Letters Patent Appeal No.28316 of 2009 before the Division Bench of High Court. The Division Bench dismissed the said appeal vide its order dated 29.1.2010, after giving valid and cogent reasons at paragraph No. 4, of the impugned judgment. The relevant portion of paragraph No. 4 is extracted hereunder :-

“4……The learned single Judge while dismissing the petition has found that the Industrial Court has given cogent and sound reasons for rejecting the application for amendment of written statement. It is concurrently found that though an opportunity was available f