bsb

IN

IN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL

CIVIL

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT

WRIT

WRIT PETITION NO. 3968 OF 2008

PETITION NO. 3968 OF 2008

PETITION NO. 3968 OF 2008

Vaibhav Laxman Suravkar & anr.

... Petitioners

v/s

M/s.Ultra Drytech Engineering Ltd.

& anr.

... Respondents

Mr.Suhas Oak i/by Mr.Sagar Joshi for the petitioners.

Mr.Sudhir Talsania i/by R.M.Pande & Co. for respondent

Nos.1 and 2.

CORAM:

CORAM:

CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.

SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.

SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.

DATED:

DATED:

DATED: 28TH AUGUST, 2008

28TH AUGUST, 2008

28TH AUGUST, 2008

P.C.

P.C.

P.C.:

1. This petition has been filed challenging the orders

of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court. The

Labour Court has found that the termination of services

of the employees was proper and that there was no unfair

labour practices as complained under Item 1(a)(b)(d) &

(f) of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act,

1971. The Industrial Court has confirmed this order in

revision. Both the Courts below have held that the

complainants, the petitioners herein had been terminated

from service after complying with the provisions of

Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In my view,

the Courts below have not committed any error by

2

concluding that the petitioners are not entitled to any

relief. The Courts below have also found that the

seniority list was displayed and that the petitioners

had been terminated from service by following the rule

of "last come first go". In my view, therefore, there

is no need to disturb the concurrent findings of fact by

both the Courts below.

2. While dismissing the complaint, the Labour Court had

directed thus -

"2. The respondents are hereby urged that if

there is work available in the company then the

said work shall be given to the retrenched

workmen as per their seniority list instead of

giving the said work to the contract labour."

2. If in fact the respondents have not observed this

part of the order, the petitioners cannot file the

present petition to execute that order.

3. Writ petition stands rejected.