Waman Govind Saple and Others vs National Textile Corporation Ltd. and Others

Pendse, J.—This appeal is directed against order dated August 3, 1992 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 919 of 1992. By the impugned order, the learned Judge admitted the petition and granted interim relief in terms of prayer (b) of the petition. Prayer (b) of the petition sought stay of order dated December 31, 1991 passed by Labour Court. The Labour Court had directed payment of salary amount to the appellants in application filed u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. To appreciate the grievance of the appellants, only few facts are required to be stated.

The appellants were employed in Kohinoor Mills Co Ltd. and were working in various Departments of the said Mills. On January 18, 1982, the employees working in the Mills went on strike. Subsequently, Textile Undertakings (Taking over of Management) Ordinance, 1983 was published by Government of India. The Ordinance subsequently was replaced by an Act. As a result of the Ordinance, the respondent No. 1 became the employer of the workmen. The appellants claimed that they were ready and willing to perform their duties and offered themselves for work but respondent No. 1 failed and neglected to provide the work or pay the salary of the appellants. The appellants thereupon filed application u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for realisation of the salary amounts. The application was resisted by the respondents, inter alia, claiming that the appellants were not ready and willing to work and had not reported for duty before the cut off date. The Labour Court, after recording evidence, came to the conclusion that the contention of the respondents was not correct and all the appellants were ready and willing to work. On the strength of this finding, the Labour Court passed order directing the respondents to pay diverse amounts to each of the appellants. The respondent No. 1 filed writ petition to challenge legality of the order and on admission of the petition obtained order of stay of implementation of the order. The order of the Single Judge granting interim relief is under challenge.

Mrs. Mhatre, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that grant of interim relief was entirely inappropriate. The learned counsel urged that the issue as to the liability of respondent No. 1 stands settled by decision of Supreme Court reported in 1993 1 CLR 602 Ltd. v. Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh & Ors. We find considerable merit in the submission of the learned counsel. Shri Naphade, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, urged that the application u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act which is in the nature of the execution proceedings was not maintainable as respondent No. 1 had raised the dispute as to whether the appellants had reported for work before the cut off date. In our judgment, the contention has no merit. The Labour Court found on evidence that all the appellants were ready and willing to work and had reported for work before the cut off date. In these circumstances, the grant of interim relief was not correct and the order of the trial Judge granting relief is required to be vacated.

Accordingly, appeal is allowed and order dated August 3, 1992 granting interim relief in terms of prayer (b) stands vacated. The respondent No. 1 shall pay the costs of the appellants.

The Prothonotary and Senior Master is directed to release the amount deposited by respondent No. 1 in favour of the appellants along with interest accrued, if any.