-1- FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 4011 OF 2008. ( M/s. Navbharat Hindi Daily .vrs. Navbharat Nav Rashtra Shramik Sangh ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or Directions Court's or Judge's Orders. And Registrar's Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 3, 2008. Heard Advocate Shri S.S. Ghate, for petitioner / employer. Challenge is to the orders dated 28.07.2008 on Exh.12 whereby the Member of the Industrial Court has refused to review the order under Section 30[2] of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, earlier granted by it on 05.03.2008 on Exh.2. The learned counsel for petitioner contends, that change in working hours from 10 to 6 p.m., was already implemented from September, 2007 itself and when a notice dated 02.10.2007 was issued for staff which was attending late, the Union approached the Industrial Court. Before the Industrial Court, there was no prayer for grant of -2- interim relief and still the Industrial Court granted the said relief. The petitioner then approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 1644/2008, and this Court permitted the petitioner to move review application before the Industrial Court. Accordingly, the Review Application was moved and it has been rejected. He contends that in absence of prayer for grant of interim relief, interim relief has been granted and further a change which was already in force has been thus directed to be withdrawn or has been stayed. According to him, all this is without jurisdiction and the petition therefore needs to be entertained and allowed. The contention that change was already implemented is not borne out from the record. The letter dated 1.12.2007 given by the complainant Union to the petitioner clearly show that, the Union was protesting and demanding that the notice of change to be given in the matter. The Management wanted the working hours to be between 10 to 6.30 p.m. while the Union was contending that since last 70 years, the working hours were from 10.30 to 5.30 p.m. As signatures of representative of Union was obtained on some register, apprehending misuse of those signatures -3- the said communication dated 1.12.2007 has been given. In U.L.P.A. Complaint No.368/2007, which has been filed thereafter, the grievance made is that since September 2007, Management had started pressurizing the employees to work between 10 a.m. to 6.30 p.m, thus Union has never stated that change was ever implemented. Similarly, the contention that there was no prayer for interim relief also cannot be accepted. The application on which orders have been passed was under Section 30[2] of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 and though prayer was made for quashing and setting aside the effect and operation of the notice dated 2.10.2007, it was qualified by word “pending final decision of the complaint”. Thus the provision under which the application has been filed as also these words at the end, clearly show that the complainants were only praying for interim relief. Though the Member of the Industrial Court has noted these aspects, the Member of the Industrial Court in review order has also found that prayer clause (ii) in the said application under Section 30[2] of the MRTU & PULP Act, was -4- sufficient to support interim relief. Relief as granted is not final relief in present facts. No case is made out warranting any interference in Writ jurisdiction, Writ Petition is thus dismissed. No costs. At this stage, Advocate Shri Ghate, for petitioner states that the proceedings in ULPA Complaint may be expedited. Considering the nature of controversy, the proceedings are expedited and learned Industrial Court is directed to decide the said complaint finally as early as possible and in any case by 30.04.2009 or even earlier. JUDGE Rgd.