1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION rpa WRIT PETITION NO. 2105 OF 2009. M/s. Sohal Engineering Wroks, Mumbai & Ors. .. Petitioners. v/s. Mazdoor Congress, Mumbai & Anr. .. Respondents. .... Mr. Shamrao Patil a/w. Mr. Avinash Patil a/w. Sophia Pinto for Petitioners. Mr. I. R. Kulkarni a/w. Mr. Devendra Joshi for Respondent No. 1. .... CORAM : S. J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : JANUARY 13, 2010. P.C. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. The learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No. 1 waives service. 3. By this writ petition the Petitioner Company has impugned the interim order passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai dated 2 20th February, 2009. 4. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner company has submitted that the Petitioner Company stopped carrying on its business since the year 1992. In fact in the year 1992 the Court Receiver with the help of the local police of Bhanup removed all the workers from the factory premises of the Petitioners and took possession of the same. Six years thereafter i.e. In the year 1998 Respondent No. 1 representing the workers of the Company filed a complaint before the Industrial Court Mumbai bearing (ULP) No. 1284 of 1998 claiming the earned wages for the period from 1st August, 1992 to 11th September, 1992 i.e. the date on which the Court Receiver took possession of the factory premises of the Petitioner Company. 5. An ex-parte order was passed by the Industrial Court on 30th September, 2002 granting the reliefs as prayed for by Respondent No. 1. The Petitioners however, could not deposit the amount passed in the said order due to severe financial crunch, as the factory was taken possession of and sealed on 11th September, 1992 by the Court Receiver. Ten years after the closure of the 3 Petitioner Company and six years after the ex-parte order passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, a complaint dated 25th August, 2008 being (ULP) No. 354 of 2008 was filed by the Respondent No. 1 Union under section 28 of the M.R.T.U and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 read with items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV to the Act claiming the dues of the workmen as shown in Exhibit D annexed thereto. 6. Interim applications seeking dues of the workmen were filed by Respondent No. 1 in the said complaint (ULP) No. 354 of 2008, which applications were disposed of by the impugned order dated 20th February, 2009. In the impugned order the learned Member of the Industrial Court has stated that he has no hesitation to accept the calculations of the legal dues as submitted by the Complainant (Respondent No. 1 herein) and has directed Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (Petitioners herein) to deposit the amount of legal dues to which the employees involved in the complaint are entitled in law within two months from 20th February, 2009. However whilst passing the order, the learned Member of the Industrial Court has in the operative part of the order first given directions to the Respondent No. 1 to 3 (Petitioners herein) to pay the legal dues of the employees 4 involved in the complaint within one month from the date of the order, as per the calculations of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (Petitioners herein) and thereafter has given an option to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (Petitioners herein) to deposit the legal dues of the employees as per the calculations shown in annexure - A to the Application, Exhibit U-15, within two months from the date of the order. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (Petitioners herein) have admittedly not given any calculations nor any mention to any calculations of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (Petitioners herein) is found in the order passed by the Industrial Court. In view thereof, there is no doubt that the order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, displays total non-application of mind and deserves to be set aside. 7. The order dated 20th February, 2009 is, therefore, quashed and set aside. However, instead of remanding the matter back with directions to the Industrial Court to hear the interim application within a period of 8 to 12 weeks, this Court directs the Industrial Court to hear and dispose of complaint (ULP) No. 354 of 2008 within a period of 12 weeks from today. All contentions of the parties are kept open. 5 8. This Court is conscious of the fact that in the meantime the dues of the workers need to be protected. The learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No. 1 states that the dues of the workers are approximately to the tune of Rs. 45-50 lakhs which is disputed by the learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners. However, the learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners states that an amount of Rs. 41 crores was received by the D.R.T. upon sale of the factory premises of the plaintiff. It is submitted that out of the said sum of Rs.41 crores, liabilities of Petitioner No. 1 to the tune of about Rs. 17 crores have been discharged. It is submitted that except for a further claim of Rs. 4 crores (which the Petitioners dispute), the Petitioners have no more claims/liabilities to be discharged. 9. In view thereof for the purpose of securing the dues of workmen, the D.R.T., Mumbai, untill further orders of this Court, is directed to keep aside an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs from the sale proceeds of the factory premises of the Petitioner Company. Respondent No. 1 shall forward a copy of this order to the D. R. T. Mumbai. 6 10. Parties to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate of this Court. 11. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of with no order as to costs. [ S. J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]