The court's power to grant interim relief under the Act does not extend to directing the reopening of a closed industry.

Headnote:
Interim Relief - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act - The court set aside the interim relief granted to reinstate employees due to the closure of the petitioner's industry, as it would amount to directing the petitioner to reopen the industry, which is not within the court's power under the Act.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's industry was closed, leading to the termination of the respondents' services. The Court below granted interim relief asking the petitioner to reinstate the respondents pending decision in their cases filed under the Act.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that since the petitioner's industry was closed, there was no question of granting reinstatement as an interim relief, as it would amount to directing the petitioner to reopen the industry, which is beyond the court's power under the Act. The impugned orders of the courts below were set aside.
Issues: Interim relief pending decision under sections 28 and 30 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
Ratio Decidendi: The closure of the petitioner's industry led to the termination of employees' services, and the court found that granting reinstatement as an interim relief would be beyond its power under the Act, as it would effectively direct the petitioner to reopen the industry.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders of the courts below were set aside. No order was made as to costs.

JUDGMENT - H.W. DHABE, J.:---This is a writ petition arising out of the interim relief granted by the Court below asking the petitioner to reinstate the respondents 3 to 23 by way of an interim measure pending decision in their cases filed by them under sections 28 and 30 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short the Act). The power is exercised by the Courts below under section 30(2) of the Act.

2. It is not in dispute between the parties that the petitioner industry was closed on 1-4-1983 from which date the services of the respondents 3 to 23 also stood terminated. Since admittedly the industry of the petitioner is closed, there is no question of granting any relief of reinstatement by way of an interim relief pending decision in the said cases because granting the same would amount to directing the petitioner to reopen his industry. It is open to doubt whether the Labour Court has, even at the time of deciding the case finally under section 30(1) of the Act, such a power to direct the petitioner to reopen his industry. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is well founded. The impugned orders, therefore, deserve to be set aside.

3. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders of the courts below are hereby set aside. Rule made absolute in the above terms. However, in the circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs.

-----

Click Here to Read the rest of this document