JUDGMENT :. Heard learned Counsel for both sides. This petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself. Hence, Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a finding on a preliminary issue rendered by the Court below vide its order dated 30th 'September, 2006 is sought to be quashed and set aside. The Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai has before it a reference made at the instance of first respondent herein. During the pendency of the said reference and pursuant to certain directions of this Court, preliminary issues have been framed. The same are as follows:-

"(i) Whether the employees concerned in the proceeding are covered under the ambit of "Workman" as per provisions of I.D. Act?

(ii) Whether the grievance made on behalf of the employees is an "Industrial dispute"?

(iii) Whether the second party union has right to raise "dispute" on behalf of the workmen?

(iv) Whether the Reference is maintainable in view of filing and pendency of Civil Suit No.2557 of 2002 ?"

2. In my view, it is not necessary to decide the challenge to the orders at exhibits H and I to the writ petition, because, now both sides agree that the preliminary issues are as above and their submissions are confined to the findings rendered thereon and more particularly on issue No.1, 2 and 4.

3. At the instance of the first respondent before me, Govt. of Maharashtra referred for adjudication, to the Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai a dispute between petitioner and respondent No.1 vide its order dated 12th April, 2005. Jurisdiction of the State Govt. u/s. 10(1) read with 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short I.D.Act) has been invoked for resolving the dispute more particularly mentioned in the order of reference. The schedule to the order of reference reads thus:

"1. To register their withdrawal from the VRS owing to the offer not having been fully accepted by you, manifested in the short payment made to them including the shortfall in commuted amounts;

2. To reinstate to them in service with full backwages, continuity in service and other consequential benefits w.e.f. the date they were rendered unemployed by your conditional acceptance of their offer till the date they actually taken back in service; and 3. To pay them damages for the hardships caused to them during the period of their enforced unemployment;

4. In alternative to demand No.1 and 2 above to pay the workmen difference in commuted amounts paid to them as lumpsum and amount equivalent to 1/3 of the total amount due to them under VRS Mumbai 2001 and/or difference in the monthly payment with penal interest thereon @ 21 % from the date of short payment".

4. After notices were issued, parties appeared before the Tribunal and filed their statement of claim and written statement. It is the case of the first respondent that it is a recognised union under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (for short MRTU & PULP Act). It is representing workmen of petitioner at Mumbai, Vashi and Bhivandi. It is alleged that the company has been consistently making good profit but it has not accepted the just and fair demands. Even the present dispute arises out of breach of settlement/agreement. It is alleged that the settlement is dated 10th December, 2001. It was intended to bring an end to about 40 cases/disputes pending in various courts. It was also intended that the Charter of Demands raised by the workmen would be negotiated and put an end to under the terms of this settlement. After making reference to the policies of Government of India liberalising the Regulations and requirements for setting up industries, it is contended that the company has shifted its focus from manufacturing to distribution of imported goods. It took liberty to revert to its original business of trading and that is how started getting rid of its employees. The strength of workmen has been reduced from time to t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document