1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3091 OF 2008 A.R. Sulphonates Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner. Vs. Maharashtra Mathadi and General Kamgar Union and another ..Respondents. ..... Mr. K.M. Naik with Mr. S.P. Salkar for the Petitioner. Mr. Avinash Jalisatgi for Respondent No.1. Mr. Sunil M. Chinchwadkar with Mr. Rahul D. Oak for Respondent No.2. ..... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 2nd May, 2008. P.C. : 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the Respondents waive service. By consent of the learned counsel, taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. A complaint of unfair labour practices has been instituted by the First Respondent against the Petitioner under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. A preliminary objection has 2 been taken by the Petitioner to the maintainability of the complaint in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kalyani Steel Ltd. (2001 AIR SCW 170(2)), Cipla Ltd. (2001 I CLR 754 and Serva Shramik Sangh v. Indian Smelting (2003 III CLR 949). A bare reading of the order dated 23rd January, 2008 passed by the Industrial Court would reveal that the Industrial Court has not considered the objection as to the maintainability of the complaint. This position is not disputed on behalf of the Respondents. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel appearing for the parties have stated before the Court that the impugned order dated 23rd January, 2008 may be quashed and set aside and the proceedings may be remitted back to the Industrial Court to decide the application at Exhibit C-3 filed by the Petitioner contesting the maintainability of the complaint. However, Counsel appearing for the First Respondent stated that it would be appropriate in the interest of justice if a direction is issued to the effect that arguments should be simultaneously addressed before the Industrial Court both on the question of maintainability as well as on the question of interim relief so as to obviate further delay in the disposal of the 3 application for interim relief if the Industrial Court comes to the conclusion that it has jurisdiction. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has fairly not raised any objection to this request. In the circumstances, in view of the aforesaid position, the following order is passed : i) The impugned order dated 23rd January, 2008 passed by the Industrial Court is quashed and set aside without the expression of any opinion by this Court on the merits of the application filed by the Petitioner questioning the maintainability of the complaint; ii) The application at Exhibit C-3 shall be restored to the file of the Industrial Court which shall hear and dispose of the application within a period of two months from the date of the reopening of the Court after the Summer recess; (iii) All the contentions of the parties are kept open to be adjudicated upon by the Industrial Court. 4 The parties are agreed that arguments shall simultaneously be addressed before the Industrial Court both on the question of maintainability and on the question of interim relief so as to obviate a further round of proceedings at a subsequent stage. The Petition is accordingly disposed of There shall be no order as to costs. *****