1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.7783 OF 2005 State Bank of Hyderabad. ...Petitioner. Vs. Sumeet Machines Employees' Union & Ors....Respondents. .... Mr. Harihar Bhave with Ms. Manisha Pant i/b. Bhave & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. Bhavesh Parmar for Respondent No.1. Mr. J.P. Cama, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashok D. Shetty and Ms.Rita K. Joshi for Respondent No.2. ..... CORAM :DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. June 25, 2008. P.C.: On 2nd December 1996, the Petitioner instituted a suit on the Original Side of this Court against the Second Respondent which is a Company by the name of Sumeet Machines Ltd and its Directors for the recovery of an amount approximately of Rs. 7.40 crores due and outstanding under a loan facility extended to the Company. In the said suit, on 2nd December 1996, this Court passed an order by which the Court Receiver was appointed as Receiver for the purposes 2 of taking inventory. In September 1999, the First Respondent filed a complaint of unfair labour practices against the Company under Item 6 of Schedule II and Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Petitioner was impleaded as the Second Respondent to the Complaint. It is alleged therein that the Company had, in view of the litigation instituted against the Company, been unable to operate its Bank Account from 1st January 1997 and to provide work to the workmen. The Petitioner was served with the complaint. An order was passed on 28th November 2000 by which a declaration was issued as against all the Respondents to the effect that they have committed unfair labour practices and the Respondents were directed to deposit the wages of the workers from October 1996 to November 2000 within one month. All the Respondents were directed to allow the workers to resume their duties and to continue to pay their full wages. 2. It has been averred that the Petitioner came to know of the order dated 28th November 2000 on receipt of a notice from the 3 Advocate of the First Respondent on 20th February 2001. Thereupon the Petitioner moved an Application on 14th May 2001 for setting aside the order of 28th November 2000. That was dismissed in default on 11th July 2002. On 19th September 2005, the Petitioner instituted a Review Petition seeking a review of the order dated 28th November 2000 in so far as the Petitioner was concerned. This, it has been stated, was rejected on the ground that the review was not maintainable. The First Respondent is stated to have instituted a series of criminal complaints against the officers of the Petitioner and against the Second and Third Respondents before the Labour Court alleging non-compliance of the order dated 28th September 2000. Show cause notices were issued to the officers of the Petitioner for non-compliance of the order passed on 28th November 2000. It has been averred that initially the Petitioner was not impleaded as a party to the criminal complaint, but by an order dated 7th May 2005, the Labour Court granted an opportunity to the Complainant to adopt proceedings to join the Petitioner as a party to the complaint. On 30th January 2006, the application filed on behalf of the workmen to join the Petitioner came to be allowed. 4 3. The challenge in these proceedings is to the orders passed by the Labour Court on 28th November 2000 and 30th January 2006. Before this Court, a petition was instituted by the Second Respondent (Writ Petition 3071 of 2008) for challenging the order of the Industrial Court dated 28th November 2000. That Writ Petition has been allowed by an order passed today. This Court has come to the conclusion that the Industrial Court had erred in condoning the delay in instituting the complaint of unfair labour practices without notice to the Second Respondent. As a consequence, the order dated 28th November 2000 was quashed and set aside. 4. It has been urged on behalf of the Petitioner that in any event, the Industrial Court was wholly in error in issuing a declaration regarding the commission of unfair labour practices as against the Petitioner. There is merit in the submission. The Petitioner had no privity to the contract of employment between the workers and the Second Respondent. The Petitioner is a financial institution which 5 had independently adopted proceedings for recovering its outstanding dues and in which orders were passed by this Court. The Labour Court was wholly in error in issuing a declaration of unfair labour practices as against the Petitioner; in directing that the Petitioner to deposit wages of the workmen and issuing a further direction to allow the workers to resume duties and pay their full wages thereafter. The Petitioner is a financial institution which extended credit to the Second Respondent and is pursuing lawful remedies for the recovery of its dues. The order passed by the Industrial Court against the Petitioner is wholly unsustainable and will have to be set aside. As a result, the Industrial Court was also in error in entertaining the criminal proceedings as against the Petitioner. 5. The Petition would have to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b-1) and the orders passed by the Industrial Court on 28th November 2000 and 30th January 2006 are quashed and set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ..... 6