IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO.458 OF 2008 NO.458 OF 2008 NO.458 OF 2008 in in in WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.769 OF 2008 PETITION NO.769 OF 2008 PETITION NO.769 OF 2008 National Centre for the Performing Arts, NCPA Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. .. Appellants Vs. 1. C.S.Ram Narayan 5/63, Mallika Building, R.B.Mehta Road, Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai-77. 2. The Member, Industrial Court, Bandra, Mumbai. .. Respondents Mr.R.M.Naik i.b Mr.S.P.Salkar for Appellants Mr.Rajesh Gehani for Respondents CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : Smt Justice Ranjana Desai Smt Justice Ranjana Desai Smt Justice Ranjana Desai and and and K.K.Tated, JJ K.K.Tated, JJ K.K.Tated, JJ DATED DATED DATED : 24th November, 2008 : 24th November, 2008 : 24th November, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 5th May 2008 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. 2. The first respondent filed a complaint in the Labour Court at Mumbai challenging his termination with effect from 31st July 2001 as an unfair labour practice under item (b) of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. (the said Act for short) By an order dated 9th July 2007 the Labour 2 Court allowed the complaint and declared that the appellants had been involved in unfair labour practice under item 1 (b) of Schedule IV of the said Act. The Labour Court directed the appellants to pay to respondent no.1 a total sum of Rs.25,000/- towards reasonable compensation in lieu of his prayer for re-instatement. Respondent no.1 carried this matter to the Industrial Court, Bombay in a revision. In the revision application respondent no.1 prayed that the order granting compensation of Rs.25,000/- be quashed and set aside and he may be granted the relief of re-instatement and full back wages and continuity of service from 31st July, 2001. Admittedly, respondent no.1 withdrew the amount of Rs.25,000/- which had been deposited by the appellants in the court. In the circumstances, the appellants raised a preliminary objection in the Industrial Court that the revision application filed by respondent no.1 was not maintainable inasmuch as he had withdrawn Rs.25,000/- which was deposited in the Court as compensation in lieu of his re-instatement. The appellants contended that the revision application is hit by the principles of estoppel. The Industrial Court, Mumbai by order dated 7th January 2008 dismissed the Application 3 Exhibit C-2 in the revision application filed by the appellants raising the preliminary objection holding inter alia that respondent no.1 had merely asked for enhancement of reliefs granted by the labour court and hence the revision application is not hit by the principles of estoppel. This order was challenged by the appellants in Writ Petition No.769 of 2008 which was dismissed by learned Single Judge by the impugned order observing that any larger controversy need not be decided in this case because, the order is interlocutory. Learned Single Judge observed that the appellants are not precluded from challenging the final order in the revision application. Learned Single Judge further observed that while impugning the same the appellants can raise appropriate pleas with regard to refusal of the revisional Court in dismissing the revision application at the threshold. Learned Single Judge kept all the pleas of the appellants open. 3. We have heard Mr.R.M.Naik, learned counsel for the appellants at some length. He submitted that learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition. He pointed out that it was improper for respondent no.1 to withdraw the amount of 4 Rs.25,000/- which was deposited in the Court in lieu of the prayer for re-instatement and then prefer a revision application praying for his re-instatement. He submitted that since the said amount was withdrawn, the appellants believing that respondent no.1 had given up his claim of re-instatement did not challenge the order of the Labour Court dated 9th July 2001. Thus, the view taken by the Labour Court that respondent no. 1 is a workman which the appellants could have challenged was not challenged by the appellants. Even on merits the appellants could have challenged the Labour Court’s order. It was not challenged only because, respondent no. 1 has accepted and withdrawn Rs.25,000/- in lieu of his re-instatement. Learned counsel submitted that grave prejudice is caused to the appellants and learned Single Judge therefore was not right in dismissing the writ petition. 4. We are informed that though respondent no.1 had withdrawn the amount of Rs.25,000/- pursuant to the order passed by the Industrial Court the said amount has been re-deposited by him in the Court. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to admit the present appeal. We however, find 5 some substance in the grievance made by learned counsel for the appellants that because respondent no.1 had withdrawn Rs.25,000/- the appellants believing that respondent no.1 had accepted the said order did not challenge the same and that may go against the appellants. We therefore, make it clear that the appellants will be at liberty to challenge order dated 9th July, 2007 passed by the Ist Labour Court, Mumbai. Needless to say that the appellants are not precluded from challenging the final order in the revision application in case the Industrial Court decides against the appellants on merits. We keep all the contentions raised by the appellants open including the appellants objection to the maintainability of the revision application on the ground that it is hit by the principles of estoppel. We also make it clear that nothing said by us in this order touching the merits of the case should be treated as our final expression on the merits of the case. Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. { Smt Justice Ranjana Desai, J } Smt Justice Ranjana Desai, J } Smt Justice Ranjana Desai, J } 6 ( K.K.Tated, J } K.K.Tated, J } K.K.Tated, J }