WP/6487/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6487 OF 2010 Manager, Shri Sanmati Mudranalaya at Bahubali, Kolhapur & Anr. ... Petitioners V/s. Shri Bahubali Kamgar Sanghatana, (INTUC) Bahubali, Kolhapur ... Respondent Mr. M.R. Topkar for the Petitioners. Mr. N.G. Helekar for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 19 TH OCTOBER, 2010. P.C. : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The Writ Petition challenges the interim order dated 16th June, 2010 passed by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur below Exhibit “U-2” in Complaint (ULP) No.71 of 2010. The Industrial Court has directed the petitioners not to terminate the services of the employees whose names are listed in “Annexure-A” to the complaint during the pendency of the complaint. The Industrial Court has further directed that the closure notice dated 17th May, 2010 be kept in abeyance till the final disposal of the main complaint. 3. Mr. Topkar, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, takes exception to the impugned order on the WP/6487/2010 2 ground that the Industrial Court has no jurisdiction to pass an order staying a closure notice. He also submits that in any event a closure notice cannot be stayed when a complaint is filed under Items 1(a) and 1(b) of Schedule II of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (for short “the MRTU & PULP Act”), especially when there is no material on record to indicate that the Trade Union is being organized in the establishment. 4. The averments in the complaint, prima facie, indicate that the respondent-Trade Union has been in existence in the petitioners’ establishment for a long period of time. Several settlements have been signed between the petitioners and the respondent. Therefore, prima facie, it would not be possible to accept that there was a threat of closure for organizing a Trade Union which is an unfair labour practice under Item 1(b) of Schedule II of the MRTU & PULP Act. 5. In my opinion, therefore, the interim order dated 16th June, 2010 must be quashed and set aside. Mr. Helekar, the learned Advocate for the respondent, has argued that the Industrial Court will have to consider the functional integrality of the Press with the rest of the WP/6487/2010 3 Bramacharyashram in order to ascertain whether there are 100 employees working in the establishment which makes it mandatory for the petitioners to obtain permission from the appropriate Government under Section 25 O of the Industrial Disputes Act for closure. 6. All these aspects can be decided by the Industrial Court at the final hearing of the complaint after evidence is recorded. It is obvious that the Industrial Court will allow such evidence as is permissible based on the pleadings on record. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16th June, 2010 passed by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur below Exhibit “U-2” in Complaint (ULP) No.71 of 2010 is set aside. 8. Mr. Topkar states that the dispute with four employees has already been settled and there is only one person who has objected to the closure. 9. The Writ Petition is allowed. 10. The Industrial Court, Kolhapur is directed to decide the Complaint (ULP) No.71 of 2010 within a period of six months from today.