JUDGMENT - KAMDAR S.U., J.: - By the present appeal, the appellants seek to impugn the order and judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25-9-2003 by which the learned Single Judge has set aside the Industrial Court's judgment dated 10-6-2003.

2. The present appeal raises an issue of interpretation of section 50 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act, 1971). We find that there are divergent views taken by two learned Single Judges of this Court one in the impugned order and judgment dated 25-9-2003 (Chandrachud, J.) and another of R.J. Kochar, J., in the case of (V. Ramnathan v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., Mumbai another)1, reported in 2001(4) Bom.C.R. (O.O.C.J.)441. Thus we are deciding the point of law posed before us in this appeal.

3. Some of the material facts, briefly enumerated are as under :-

4. The appellant No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act and inter alia carries on business of manufacturing engineering items. The respondent workman had filed a complaint of unfair labour practice against the appellant under Items 5, 9 and 10 of the M.R.T.U. PULP Act, 1971. By an order dated 22-6-2001 the Industrial Court allowed the complaint in so far as Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of he said Act and held that the appellants have indulged in unfair labour practices. While passing the aforesaid order the Industrial Court, inter alia, directed the appellants to pay 50% wages to the respondent employees for a period of lay off from January 2000 to July, 2000. Further directions are given permitting the respondent workmen to resume their duties in the appellant company. It has been further directed that after the period of July, 2000 the workmen should be paid wages continuously until the orders passed by the Industrial Court are complied with. The said order of the Industrial Court was challenged before this Court unsuccessfully.

5. It is an admitted position that after two months of the respondents resuming the job, the appellant company has declared a lock out.

6. The appellant did not comply with the said order passed by the Industrial Court and therefore an application was made by the respondent workmen under section 50 of the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 before the Industrial Court for issuance of a recovery certificate for recovery of outstanding dues.

7. The Industrial Court has by an order and judgment dated 10-6-2003 rejected the said application on the ground that it has no jurisdiction under section 50 of the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 to consider the said application since it involves a computation of wages for a period January to July, 2000 and for a subsequent period till the workmen are taken on job in November, 2001 under an award. While taking the aforesaid view, the Industrial Court had relied upon a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of V. Ramnathan v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., Mumbai another, (supra) and dismissed the said application.

8. This order of the Industrial Court was challenged before the learned Single Judge who has by the impugned order and judgment inter alia held that the Industrial Court has jurisdiction under section 50 of the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 to compute the dues payable under an award passed earlier. While holding so, the learned Single Judge relied upon a series of the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court of India and has come to the aforesaid conclusion. It is this judgment of the learned Single Judge which is the subject-matter of appeal before us.

9. By order dated 23-4-2004 passed by the Division Bench in present appeal the proposed consent minutes of order has been taken on record. The same was not signed by the learned Counsel for the respondents. It was directed thereunder that an amount of Rs. 11,60,000/- was to be deposited and the said amount to be paid over to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. We are informed that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document