1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2318/08 M/s Skystar Petitioner Vs. Ruby Coach Workers Union & Ors. Respondents Mr.S.K.Talsania ,Sr.Counsel a/w Ms.Aakanksha V.Thakkar i/b Ms.Purnanand & Co.for the petitioner Mr.Arshad Shaikh i/b M/s Vinod Shetty & Co.for the respondents Mr.Aditya Chitale for Respondent no.4 CORAM: S.J.VAZIFDAR,J. DATE : 27th January,2009. P.C. 1] The impugned order warrants no interference despite the fact that it is an admitted position that the petitioner,respondent no.5 in the complaint, is not the employer. 2] By the impugned order it is only directed that the maintainability of the complaint against the petitioner will be decided at the final hearing. It is pertinent to note that prayer 'c' of the complaint seeks an order directing the employer not to close the manufacturing activities of the company and not to impose closure of the company without following the due procedure of law. This order,if granted, prima facie would affect the petitioner as well. 3] Mr.Talsania with considerable force relied upon the consent terms which have been arrived at as well as the fact that an 2 application for review thereof by respondent no.1 was rejected. On merits,as things stand today there undoubtedly are important facts in favour of the petitioner.They,however,do not indicate that the maintainability of the complaint ought to be decided as a preliminary issue . 4] Considering the stand taken by respondent no.1 even assuming the same to be unfair or dishonest as contended by the petitioner, it does not reflect upon the question as to whether the issue of maintainability of the complaint has to be decided as a preliminary issue . In the circumstances the Writ Petition is dismissed.