-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4930 OF 2008 Mathew John Anthony and others ... Petitioners versus The President, Mess Committee and others ... Respondents Mr. N.A. Kulkarni for the petitioner. Mr. D.J. Bhanage for the respondents. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. DATE: JULY 15, 2008. P.C. This petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court, Pune, dated 17th June, 2008 by which the Industrial Court has rejected the application for interim relief at Exhibit U-2 in the complaint. 2. The petitioners herein have filed a complaint being Complaint (ULP) No. 53 of 2008 on the ground that they are the employees of respondent Mess Committee of Armed Forces Medical College and that it is an establishment as per Section 2 (8) of the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948. As per the complaint, the respondent has indulged -2- in unfair labour practice in not making the complainants permanent and not giving status of permanency to them. During the pendency of the complaint, application for interim stay was also pressed into service. The Industrial Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, found that there is no prima facie case made out by the complainants for getting any interim relief. The Industrial Court found that the students of the Armed Forces Medical College are running the mess on their own and they have formed a Mess Committee and the mess is an internal administration of the students which is run on the basis of no loss no profit basis. The Industrial Court gave a prima facie finding to the effect that the activity of mess is different than the activity of canteen or club. The Industrial Court also observed that earlier petition was filed by these petitioners against the Union of India as well as the Armed Forces Medical College and Mess Committee being Writ Petition No. 614 of 2003. However, a Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 7th December, 2007 dismissed the said writ petition. Thereafter the present complaint has been filed by the Petitioners. 3. So far as the present petition is concerned, the same is directed against an interim order of the Industrial Court by which interim relief is refused. The Industrial Court has given cogent reasons for refusing the interim relief. Whether the Mess Committee formed by the students can be said to be a commercial undertaking and whether Section 2 (8) of the -3- Bombay Shops and Establishment Act is attracted in this case are the questions which are required to be decided in the main complaint and after taking evidence on record. At the interim stage this Court cannot decide finally all these points. 4. Considering the said aspect, in my view, the Industrial Court was justified in not entertaining the prayer for interim relief. The discretionary order of the Industrial Court in rejecting the application is, therefore, not required to be interfered with in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India. It is required to be noted that the observations made by the Industrial Court should be treated as tentative in nature and ultimately the complaint is to be decided on its own merits and as per the evidence on record. It will be open for the petitioners to request the Industrial Court to decide the complaint at the earliest. If any request is made, it is for the Industrial Court to consider the same. 5. In view of what is stated above, the petition is dismissed. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.