JUDGMENT - Smt. MHATRE NISHITA, J.:—This appeal challenges the order of the learned Single Judge confirming the order of the Industrial Court, dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant under Item 9, Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'MRTU PULP Act') on the ground that the relief claimed by the appellant could not be granted as the company was declared a sick unit and consent of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'BIFR') had not been obtained.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows :

The appellant was working in the Grey Winding department of Kohinoor Mill since 1979. On 18-1-1982, a strike was declared in the textile industry. The appellant was not assigned any work although he reported for duty during the strike period. The appellant, therefore, filed an application before the Labour Court under section 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. The Labour Court directed the appellant to be reinstated with 50% backwages w.e.f. 15-1-1985 on which date the appellant had sent an approach letter under section 42(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act (For short, hereinafter referred to as 'BIR Act'). An appeal which was preferred by respondent No. 1 under section 84 of the BIR Act was dismissed by the Industrial Court. A Writ Petition bearing No. 1692 of 1991 filed against the order of the Industrial Court met with the same fate. The special leave petition filed before the Apex Court by respondent No. 1 was also dismissed. Therefore, the order of the Labour Court dated 2-9-1987 in Application (BIR) No. 679 of 1985 was confirmed and became final. Respondent No. 1 did not comply with this order and, therefore, the appellant was constrained to file Complaint (ULP) No. 709 of 1992 before the Industrial Court under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act. The main contention raised by respondent No. 1 before the Industrial Court while resisting the complaint was that the unit had been declared sick under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'SICA') and proceedings under section 12 of that Act had been commenced. It was, therefore, pleaded that by virtue of section 22 of the SICA, the complaint was required to be stayed and no orders could be passed therein. By an order of 30-9-1994, the Industrial Court came to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 had committed an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act as there was a failure on the part of respondent No. 1 complying with the order passed by the Labour Court. However the Industrial Court was of the view that section 22(1) of SICA prevented the appellant from getting any relief as no consent had been obtained by him from the BIFR and, therefore, the complaint was rejected. Being aggrieved by this, the appellant preferred a writ petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge confirmed this order of the Industrial Court and rejected the writ petition. It is against this order that the present appeal has been preferred.

3. The only question that we are called upon to consider is whether section 22(1) of the SICA would bar the appellant from getting the relief sought in the complaint. The Industrial Court has already come to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 has committed an unfair labour practice by not implementing the order of the Labour Court in Application (BIR) No. 69 of 1985.

4. Mr. Ganguli, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that a complaint filed under the MRTU PULP Act is not a proceeding as contemplated under section 22 of the SICA as the only proceedings which were covered under section 22(1) as it stood when the complaint was decided were proceedings for winding up of the industrial companies or for execution, distress or the like against any of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document