1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.8084 of 2007 Shramik Sena Petitioner Vs. M/s.Reliance Industries Ltd. & anr. Respondents Mr.P.K.Rele, Senior Counsel with Mr.Rahul Oak for petitioner. Mr.C.U.Singh, Senior Counsel with Ms.J.M.Sidwa i/b. i/b. M/s/Junnarkar & Associates for resp.no.1. Mr.V.P.Vaidya for respondent no.2. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. February 26, 2008 ORAL ORDER: 1. Heard Mr.Rele, the learned Senior Counsel with Mr.Rahul Oak for the petitioner - Union. 2. Rule. 3. Respondents waive service. 4. Rule is taken up for final hearing forthwith as the petition impugns an interlocutory order passed below Exhibit U-2 by the learned Member of the Industrial Court on 19/6/2007 in Complaint (ULP) 2 No.311 of 2003 which has been filed by the petitioner - Union. 5. The petitioner was a recognised Union within the meaning of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 ("the Act" for short) and had filed Complaint (ULP) No.311 of 2003 under Item 2(b) of Schedule II and Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act against the respondent no.1 and in the said complaint an application for interim relief at Exhibit U-2 was also filed under Section 30(2) of the Act and the same application came to be partly allowed by the following order: "The order passed below Exhibit 10 regarding deduction of subscription and to retain the same is considered as part and parcel of this application and continued the same until further orders." . In the mean while the present respondent no.2 - Union filed an application for being impleaded in Complaint (ULP) No.311 of 2003 and the same was allowed. The respondent no.2 - Union came to be registered as a recognised Union by the Industrial Court on 23rd August 2006 in place of the complainant 3 - Union and the said order has received its finality in view of the dismissal of Writ Petition No.5858 of 2006 as well as SLP No.3715 of 2007. The respondent no.2 - Union has them moved a fresh complaint before the Industrial Court which has been registered as Complaint (ULP) No.96 of 2007 under Item no.5 of Schedule II and Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. In the said complaint an application at Exhibit U-2 was also filed praying for directions to deduct the membership fees from the wages and to pay the same to the Union. In the said complaint the present respondent no.1 and the Vice President of the respondent no.1 were impleaded as the respondent nos.1 and 2 respectively. It appears the petitioner made an application for being impleaded as respondent no.3 and the said application at Exhibit UA-3 came to be allowed on 19/4/2007. The petitioner has filed its reply at Exhibit UA-6 opposing the application at Exhibit U-2 and Complaint (ULP) No.96 of 2007. However, after hearing all the parties the learned Member of the Industrial Court was pleased to reject the application at Exhibit U-2 filed in Complaint (ULP) No.96 of 2007 on 19/6/2007 and on the same day the impugned order has been passed in the complaint filed by the petitioner - Union. 4 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner - Union submitted that the impugned order has been passed without notice and without hearing and thus in breach of the principles of natural justice. The directions given to the company to deduct the subscription fees and to retain the same were pursuant to the interim order passed below Exhibit 10 on 3/10/2003. This order was in operation for more than seven years and certainly has caused prejudice to the petitioner - Union. At this stage Mr.Vaidya, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 - Union pointed out that on 25/4/2007 the said Union has filed an application at Exhibit 34 in Complaint (ULP) No.311 of 2003 and has prayed for vacating the order passed in favour of the petitioner - Union. The respondent no.2 - Union has more specifically prayed to stop the deductions of membership fees of the petitioner - Union in respect of the members of the respondent no.2 - Union and for deduction of subscription of the said Union as it is the recognised Union. This application is still pending and despite these obtaining circumstances, it was not permissible for the learned Member to pass the impugned order and that too in breach of the 5 principles of natural justice. It is, therefore, necessary that the impugned order is set aside and the Industrial Court is directed to decide the application at Exhibit 34 filed by the present respondent no.2 in Complaint (ULP) No.311 of 2003 after hearing all the parties concerned. 7. Hence the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19/6/2007 passed below Exhibit U-2 in Complaint (ULP) No.311 of 2003 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Industrial Court is directed to hear and decide the application filed by the respondent no.2 at Exhibit 34 in Complaint (ULP) No.311 of 2003 as expeditiously as possible. 8. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 9. R. & P. be returned forthwith. (B.H.MARL