1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.821 OF 2008 Bhartiya Kamgar Sena .. Petitioner Versus M/s.Eastern International Hotel Pvt.Ltd. and Anr. .. Respondents Mr.M.D.Nagle for petitioner Mr.C.U.Singh, Senior Advocate with Mrs.Sarika Deshpande i/b. Haresh Mehta & Co. for respondents. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 9th June 2008 P.C. . The petitioner Union has challenged the interim order dated 19th March 2008 which has been passed in Complaints (ULP) No.379 of 2007 and 79 of 2008. There is another complaint (ULP) No.111 of 2008. However, the present petition has been filed by the Union who is original 2 complainant in Complaint ULP No.79 of 2008. 2. The common order disposes of the application below Exh.U-2 for interim relief. It appears that the learned Judge took up the applications for interim relief together and by a common order has decided them. It is not necessary to go into any wider issues inasmuch as such consolidation and common hearing so also common orders should not be a matter of course and routine in such cases. However, on the own showing of the learned Member, the complaints are filed alleging unfair labour practices under diverse items of the M.R.T.U. and PULP Act invoking jurisdiction of the court under section 28 thereof, then, it was desirable that he should have segregated the hearing. 3. Be that as it may, today the Union is aggrieved only by refusal of interim relief with regard to wages after notice dated 9th February 3 2008. The interim order itself directs payment under Direction I. The legal dues have to be computed on the basis that the workmen/employees had been retrenched and the retrenchment compensation was directed to be deposited in cases of workers involved in complaints on or before 19th April 2008. Needless to state that this direction is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties at the hearing of complaint. The matter was adjourned by me as Mr.Singh was to take instructions about the deposit of amount directed under the impugned order. A copy of the application/purshis made on 7th June 2008 before the Industrial Court and the order made thereon indicates that a sum of Rs.2,43,12,413/- has been deposited. 4. Mr.Nagle appearing for petitioner, on taking instructions makes a statement that about 207 workmen are involved in the complaints. He highlights several difficulties including school 4 admissions for children, medical expenses, repayment of housing loans etc. of each employees and submits that due to the workmen not being allowed to work at site and even their wages after notice period not being released, they are facing considerable hardships and it is difficult for them to make both ends meet. Therefore, direction No.II of the Industrial Court may be modified and even those wages be directed to be released/paid. 5. Mr.Singh, learned Senior Counsel states that now written statement is filed by the respondent and they are ready and willing to abide by the direction of industrial court of day to day hearing of the main complaint and early disposal thereof. He submits that today this Court should not pass any further orders or directions so also this Court should not modify or substitute the interim orders as that would involve rendering findings at a prima facie 5 stage. These findings are likely to prejudice the case of the respondents. 6. More so, when there are other complaints pending and that is how Mr.Singh proceeds to urge that this Court should dispose of the petition by directing early hearing of the main complaint. 7. Mr.Nagle submits that the order has been passed on 19th March 2008 and thereupon till date no compliance was made with the same and it is only today that the amount is said to have been deposited. He, therefore, submits that this Court should go into rival contentions and pass appropriate orders. 8. Upon reading of impugned order it is apparent to me that there are three complaints which are instituted by the employees and one is by the Officers and Staff Association. 6 9. The complaints are also not identical. There are two unions and one Association which is the complainant. Some of the respondents are also not parties to all complaints. Therefore, at the instance of only one of the complainant, if the rival contentions are considered that is likely to prejudice both sides. More so, when now, I have ensured the deposit of the sum under Direction No.I. With further directions that I propose to issue, it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. 10. In my view, any expression of opinion insofar as the contentions on merits of the controversy are concerned, is likely to prejudice both sides and some other parties as well. Hence, I refrain from expressing any opinion on merits at this prima facie stage. 11. The complaints are ripe for hearing and written statements have been filed. There are 7 directions issued for day to day hearing by the Industrial Court itself. Therefore, it is for the Industrial Court to ensure compliance with its own directions and it must so ensure. If an outer limit is fixed for disposal of the complaint and that is how the directions have been issued at the interim stage, then, the Industrial Court must in all seriousness dispose of these complaints expeditiously and in any event within the time frame stipulated by it. In addition, since the amount is deposited and some of the workmen are expressing their immediate financial problems and difficulties, interest of justice would be sub-served if the workmen concerned are permitted to apply for withdrawal of such amount as they are entitled to at this stage and such application, if made, must be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the employer as well. 12. Needless to state that the Industrial 8 Court is at liberty to pass such further interim orders and directions in the interest of justice and merely because it has passed an earlier interim order, which has not been interfered with by this Court, does not mean that in changed circumstances and considering the hardships, it cannot issue appropriate further orders and directions. All contentions in that behalf of both sides are kept open and no opinion is expressed thereon. 13. Needless to further state that if the wages after notice period which are also sought for as an interim relief, an application can be made by the Union, if the Industrial Court does not proceed with the hearing of the complaints by 10th July 2008. Even such an application could be made and if made should be decided uninfluenced by all earlier orders and observations and the fact of this Court disposing of the instant petition. All contentions in that 9 behalf also are kept open. 14. This petition is disposed of with specific clarifications that all pleas as far as merits and maintainability are concerned in all the complaints, are kept open and the Industrial Court should dispose of the complaints strictly on merits and in accordance with law. Petition disposed of. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)