Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.156 of 2008 Maharashtra General Kamgar Mahasangh, ...Petitioners V/s. 1. Accurate Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and others. ...Respondents Mr.N.M.Ganguli for the Petitioner Mr.K.S.Bapat for the Respondents CORAM CORAM CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATED DATED DATED : 5th February , 2008 : 5th February , 2008 : 5th February , 2008 P.C. Heard Mr.Ganguly, the learned counsel for the petitioner union. The said union has filed Complaint(ULP)No. 221/2007 against the present Respondent three companies and one Shri Katkar alleged to be the Personnel Manager-Incharge of all the three Respondent companies, under Section 28(1) read with items 1(a)(b) of Schedule II and items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 (the Act, for short). 2. In the said complaint the application for interim-relief under Section 30(2) of the Act was filed and after hearing all the parties concerned the Learned 2 Member of the Industrial Court at Pune was pleased to reject the said application as per the order dated 30-10-2007 and hence this petition. 3. The substantial relief prayed for in the main complaint is only for declarations i.e. prayer clause (a) and (b) and prayer clause (c) & (d) deals with interim reliefs i.e. directions not to discharge/dismiss/terminate the employees listed out in Annexure-A without following the due process of law and not to shift the plant and machinery from the factory situated at Gauge House, 67, Hadpasar, Industrial Estate, Dist. Pune or create any third party interest or close down establishment without following the procedure laid down under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the application at Exhibit U-2 the interim reliefs as stated hereinabove were prayed for. The Respondent No.1 Company i.e. M/s. Accurate Engineering Pvt. Limited filed its written-statement as well as reply and pointed out that it has a distinct legal entity and Respondent No.2 and 3 were not its departments or branches. It was further stated that there was no functional integrality in the three companies and,therefore, all the three companies employ separate employees, a combined complaint of unfair labour practice was not maintainable. On merits it was submitted that it was not aware of the existance of the 3 Complainant union and in any case it was a complaint filed without any cause and is a frivolous one. It was further pointed out that the persons listed in Annexure-A to the complaint were not its employees in as much as all of them were not its employees. Respondent No.2 also filed an affidavit opposing the application for interim-relief and reiterated that Respondent No.2 is a separate legal entity and,therefore, a joint complaint was not maintainable. Same arguments were also drafted by the Respondent No.3 by filing an affidavit in reply to the application for interim-relief. 4. The Learned Member of the Industrial Court in the impugned order noted that there was no specific instances of unfair labour practices pointed out beyond vague allegations against the Respondents. The letters which were relied upon by the Complainant union were dated 3-10-2007 and were posted on 20-10-2007 i.e. after the exparte interim order was passed in favour of the union on 18-10-2007. Similarly, the intimation to the Respondents regarding the formation of Complainant union was forwarded by post for the first time on 20-10-2007. The Industrial Court, therefore, recorded a finding that there was no prima-facie case of unfair labour practice made out against the Respondents and in any case they were all separate legal entities as 4 claimed by the Respondents. Prima-facie there was no material to accept that Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were one and the same employer. 5. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have filed separate affidavits in reply. The first Respondent is a company incorporated on 21-2-1963 under the Companies Act, 1956 and it has obtained a separate factory license in respect of the factory situated at Survey No. 853 at Saswad Jejuri Road, Purander, Pune and it employs 48 employees on its rolls as of now. The affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No.2 states that it was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 13-12-1984. It has a separate factory licence and the factory is located on Survey No. 855/856 at Saswad Jejuri Road. It has been further stated that it employs only 44 employees on its rolls as of now. The affidavit in reply filed on behalf of Respondent No.3 states that it was incorporated on 15-1-1987 under the Companies Act, 1956 and is issued factory license in respect of factory located at Survey No. 852 at Saswad Jejuri Road. It further states that it employs only 8 employees on its rolls as of now. 6. Having regards to these affidavits as well as the written-statement and the affidavits presented before the Industrial Court and the averments made, I am 5 satisfied that the reasoning set out by the Industrial Court in rejecting the application for interim-relief cannot be termed as perverse or grossly erroneous. Hence, there is no case made out to cause interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. 7. Petition is rejected summarily. [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]