CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2002) 01 BOM CK 0091

Sohanlal Mijajilal Karotia vs Welcome Group Searock Sheraton

Bombay High Court · Decided on 28 January 2002 · Citation: (2002) 93 FLR 730 : (2002) 4 LLJ 30

HON’BLE JUDGES
Nishita Mhatre, J
CASE NUMBER
O.O.C.J. W.P. No. 213 of 2002

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 348 words

Nishita Mhatre, J.—The petitioner challenges the orders of the Industrial Court dated June 13, 2001 and October 30, 2001. The order of the Industrial Court dated June 13, 2001 is an order reviewing its earlier order dated June 16, 1997 passed by the Industrial Court while granting interim relief. The petitioner by that order remained under suspension. However, the enquiry which was instituted by the respondent continued. When the enquiry was completed and the respondent wished to terminate the services of the petitioner, the respondent filed a review application u/s 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 for reviewing and vacating the earlier order. The Industrial Court vacated the earlier Order granting interim relief. The Industrial Court while doing so, it appears, has acted as if it is a Court of Appeal rather than merely reviewing the order.

2.

The review was granted and the earlier interim order was vacated. As a consequence, the petitioner''s services were terminated. The petitioner, therefore, filed another interim application which was disposed of by the order dated October 30, 2001. In this application, the petitioner prayed for restitution of the interim relief which had been granted by the order of the Industrial Court on June 10, 1997. This application was rejected by the Industrial Court. It is against these two orders that the petitioner has a grievance.

3.

Since these are the interim orders, I do not propose to interfere with the same. Suffice to say that the order upon the review application appears to be made without considering the powers of review and the Industrial Court has arrogated to itself the appellate powers. However, I do not wish to go into this issue at this stage since the complaint has been pending since 1996. It would, therefore, be proper if the complaint is decided as expeditiously as possible and in any event, not later than August 31, 2002.

4.

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

5.

Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Associate.