1 wp779.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 779 OF 2011 Concept Pharmaceuticals Ltd., ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- Concept Pharmaceuticals Kamgar Sanghatana ..RESPONDENT ..... Mr. R.V. Ghuge, advocate for petitioner. Mr. T.K. Prabhakaran, advocate for respondent. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 17th March, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard finally with consent of parties. 2. Contention of Advocate Mr. Ghuge for petitioner is that the final relief prayed for in ULP complaint has been allowed as interim relief by the Industrial Court. He states that the amount due and payable as per the impugned order of the Industrial Court has been deposited by the petitioner with that Court only to show bonafides. He invited attention to ULP complaint to show that relief granted as interim relief has also been prayed as final relief. He invites attention to relevant provisions of settlement dated 27.06.2008 to urge that inam/ex-gratia is payable subject to the full filing GMP and CMD requirements. As that fulfillment is still not established and it is the defence of the petitioner that there is no such fulfillment, the respective employees are not entitled to inam/ex- gratia and hence interim order of the Industrial Court is unsustainable. 2 wp779.11 3. According to Advocate Mr. Prabhakaran for respondent, the contentions are misconceived. He relies upon express language of clause 9 to state that arrears from March, 2007 are payable to everybody towards inams/ex-gratia. He further points out that requirement of GMP/CMD are prescribed elsewhere and they do not form part of agreement and same are prescribed for the first time even in statute on 15.07.2008. In this background, he relies upon the chart produced at Exhibit- `5' of the Writ Petition to urge, that chart itself shows entitlement of each employees. He contends that the Industrial Court has rightly appreciated the controversy and as the entitlement is admitted, direction to release that amount was given. 4. He further states that the said direction is not in the shape of any final relief and it is only interim relief. Without prejudice, he states that the amount towards the inam/ex-gratia is worked out to Rs. 18,000/- each and the respondent should be allowed to withdraw that amount. In case their complaint is dismissed, the petitioner-employer can recover that amount from their monthly salary or other statutory benefits. According to him, as there is no jurisdictional error or perversity, the present Petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The perusal of the ULP complaint as filed reveals that the prayer (C) therein to seeks directions to employer to pay arrears of wages to each of 107 employees from March, 2007 to May, 2008. Perusal of application under Section 30(2) filed by Union on behalf of those 107 employees shows the similar prayer as prayer clause (C) and that relief has been claimed as interim relief. The 3 wp779.11 petitioner-employer has raised objection and contended that entitlement of respective employees is yet not adjudicated upon. According to employer, the employees are not entitled to that amount. 6. In this background, the learned Member of the Industrial Court has appreciated the controversy. It has given importance to the facts that arrears payable to each individual are already worked out and form part and parcel of the agreement. Perusal of the agreement dated 27.06.2008 shows that in clause 9, it mentions the amount that will be paid as ex-gratia/inam vide Annexure VI and then proceeds to state that calculation would be at the rates prescribed therein i.e. in clause 9. It is also added that payment of inam/ex-gratia will be as per guidelines from CMD. The agreement also refers that inam will be paid along with salary of August, 2008 and after confirmation from CMD ex-gratia will be paid along with salary of November, 2008. 7. The impugned order of Industrial Court does not record finding that there has been confirmation from CMD. Whether, the defence of the present petitioner that inam/ex-gratia is payable in accordance with guidelines of CMD and if finding out GPM is correct or not is a disputed question. That question is still not adjudicated upon. The Industrial Court has only gone by chart produced to hold that the employees are entitled to amount as described in that chart. In the light of language of clause 9 and defence of petitioner in written statement it can not be said that mention of amount in chart itself shows entitlement of these 107 workers. 4 wp779.11 8. It is apparent that the relief claimed as final relief in complaint hence can not be granted as interim relief. As the said entitlement is not adjudicated upon finally, the relief could not have been given as interim relief. 9. Here in the present facts the employer has already deposited that amount with Industrial Court. I therefore find that the interest of justice would be met by directing the Industrial Court to decide the ULP complaint itself on merits in accordance with law as early as possible and in any case within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order to it. The petitioner shall however not withdraw the amount deposited with Industrial Court. The party succeeding shall be entitled to withdraw that amount. 10. The petition is disposed of with that directions. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp779.11