1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.691 OF 2010 Lyka Lab & Associate Companies ..Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Ms. Meena Doshi for the Petitioners Mr. A.K.Jarsatgi AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Mr. K.S. Bapat i/b Mr. Rahul Nerlekar for Respondent No.3 CORAM : J. N. PATEL & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : 13th APRIL, 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners-Union has filed this writ petition seeking directions of this Court to respondent No.2 to refer the matter for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal in the matter of application for closure under Section 25-O, which has been allowed by respondent No.2 by order dated 26-2-2010, granting permission for closure to respondent No.3. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.3 has filed this 2 application seeking closure of their Distribution Department vide their letter dated 27-1-2010. Therefore, in all the 17 workmen who were the members of the petitioners-Union will be directly affected and would lose their job with respondent No.3 without having an opportunity of agitating the issue before the Industrial Tribunal without being given notice. The learned AGP appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that he would seek instructions in the matter which led to the Court passing an interim order on 29-3-2010, directing respondent No.2 to take a decision in the matter of closure by making a reference for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, within a period of two weeks. This Court further passed an order that till then respondent No.3 would not act in furtherance of its notice dated 2-3-2010. The respondent No.2 has passed an order referring the matter to the Industrial Tribunal on 3 9-4-2010, copy of which is tendered to this Court by the learned AGP. 3. The order is passed by respondent No.2 referring the matter under Section 25-O(5) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal Mumbai, presided over by Shri M.G. Choudhari. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 pointed out to this court that on respondent No.3 making a draft reference to the President of the Industrial Court at Mumbai, the President of Industrial Court assigned the reference in favour of the Industrial Tribunal, Thane, presided over by Shri D.H. Deshmukh. It is submitted that the Petitioners through their Counsel, without giving any notice to the respondents, approached the President of the Industrial Court and drew the attention of the learned President of Industrial Court to the interim order passed by this court and accordingly the President of Industrial Court modified 4 its order and assigned the matter to Mr. M.G. Choudhari, Member of the Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai. It is submitted that this will give rise to the jurisdictional issue as the jurisdiction in the matter lies with the Industrial Tribunal at Thane and not Mumbai as the subject matter of the reference is in respect of a closure of respondent No.3’s Distribution Department, situate at Gala No.122, Laxmi Commercial Complex, Kalher Village, Tal-Bhivandi, Dist.-Thane. 5. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners took exception to this application and submitted that the petitioners have only brought to the notice of the President the Industrial Tribunal the interim order passed by this Court which clearly mentions that reference is to be made to the Industrial Court at Mumbai. It is submitted by the Counsel appearing for the petitioner that as the permission for closure was sought from respondent No.2 which is at Mumbai, the 5 Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai will have jurisdiction over the matter. The learned AGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2 states that the territorial jurisdiction would be Thane and not Mumbai as the specified authority i.e. respondent No.2 is common for Thane and Mumbai. We do not want to adjudicate on the issue of jurisdiction, as contended by the Counsel for the parties. The interim order passed by this Court was on the basis of prayer made by the petitioners in their petition and it was not brought to the notice of the Court at the time of passing of the interim order. Prima facie, we are satisfied that the assignment made by President of Industrial Tribunal, at the first instance i.e. assigning the reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Thane, presided over by Shri D.H.Deshmukh, was correct. The subsequent modification of the order of assignment, at the instance of the Counsel for the petitioners, is that the President of the Industrial 6 Tribunal should assign the matter to the Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai, presided over by Mr. M.G.Choudhari, which came to be incorporated in the order dated 9-4-2010, passed by respondent No.2 pursuant to the interim directions of this Court. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we permit respondent No.3 to file an application before respondent No.2 to modify the order dated 9-4-2010 to the extent of the assignment of the reference to the appropriate Industrial Tribunal. On such application being made, respondent No.2 take a decision in the matter within a week’s time after giving notice to the petitioners. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would waive service if 48 hour notice is given to the petitioners before the application is made before respondent No.2, so far it relates to assignment of the reference to the Industrial Tribunal. 7 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that till their application for interim relief is decided by the Industrial Tribunal, this Court can extend the protection granted by it vide order dated 29-3-2010. This is strongly objected by the Counsel for respondent No.3 and it is submitted that respondent No.3 company is ready to deposit one month’s salary which is the period stipulated for deciding the reference, as an assurance to protect the interest of the members of petitioners-Union who will be affected by the closure. 8. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioners-workmen need to be protected till the Industrial Tribunal takes a decision on their application for interim relief in respect of the closure along with the reference, and, therefore, we direct the parties to file their respective claim/written statement before the Industrial Tribunal within a period of two weeks from the date respondent No.2 assigns the matter to the 8 appropriate Industrial Tribunal, either at Thane or Mumbai. Till then, respondent No.3 would not act in furtherance of its notice dated 2-3-2010. 9. Needless to say the Industrial Tribunal will decide the application for interim relief, if any, made by either parties on its own merits as this Court has not adjudicated on any issue relating to the subject matter of this petition. 10. Considering that respondent No.2 has already taken a decision and has referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal, nothing survives in this petition. The petition stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order with no order as to costs. (J.N. Patel, J.) (A. P. Bhangale, J.)