JUDGMENT - B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.:---The appellant/petitioner has assailed the order dated 28th April, 2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1602 of 2000 to the extent of refusal to grant interim relief to the Appellant/ Petitioner. The said order passed by the learned Single Judge, reads as under :

"Rule. No interim relief."

2. We have heard Shri K.K. Singhwi, the learned Senior Counsel with Shri Naik and Shri Ghuge, for the appellant/petitioner and Shri T.K. Prabhakaran, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 3 is not a necessary party and he is, therefore, directed to be deleted forthwith.

3. By the consent of the parties the appeal was taken up for final hearing on 31st August, 2000. The factual matrix leading to this Letters Patent Appeal is required to be briefly stated, as under :

4. The appellant is a public limited company with its registered office at Tardeo, Mumbai and has a factory in the M.I.D.C. Industrial Area at Waluj, near Aurangabad. The employees of the said factory are the members of Johnson Johnson Employees Union. The factory operation started sometimes in 1991 and there are 100 employees who are the members of the said union. The union has also obtained a certificate of recognition under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 (Act for short). A settlement regarding service conditions was arrived at between the Appellant Management and the recognised union on 16th December, 1993 and it expired on 30th September, 1996. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were the General Secretary and President, respectively, of the said recognised union and they had submitted a charter of demands on 19th August, 1996 for revision in wages and the demand in terms of monetary increase came to Rs. 20, 000/- per month. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted a strike notice dated 23rd August, 1997 proposing a strike commencing from 7th September, 1997. However, in the meanwhile, the charter of demand was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal by the State Government vide its order dated 29th August, 1997 under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act for short). The strike had commenced from 7th September, 1997 and the employees, lead by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 allegedly indulged in acts of indiscipline, violence and intimidation etc. during the period of strike. This resulted in termination of service of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by order dated 8th September, 1997.

5. As the reference on charter of demand was pending (Reference (IT) No. 1 of 1997) the appellant Management filed applications for approval under section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act before the Industrial Tribunal on 8th September, 1997 itself. A fresh notice of strike dated 15th September, 1997 was submitted by the union regarding the dispute of termination of service of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 alongwith other demands and these demands also came to be referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 9th October, 1997 passed by the State Government. This notice was signed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The strike continued for about four months and, in the meanwhile, fresh elections to the office bearers of the recognised union were held and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were not in the new body of the office bearers. The new office bearers negotiated with the management and ultimately it was agreed that an increase of Rs. 1,700/- per month, for each worker, over and above the prevailing emoluments would be just and proper. The parties accordingly signed a settlement on 11th February, 1998 and the workers had withdrawn the strike and resumed work on 8th January, 1998 i.e. prior to the signing of settlement.

6. It is contended that a joint pursis came to be filed before the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 1 of 1999 on 17th March, 1998 praying for disposal of the reference as not surviving and/ or not presse

Click Here to Read the rest of this document