1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 265 OF 2008 HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED, Formerly known as Hindustan Lever Limited, Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim, Goa. ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Goa Through the Chief Secretary having its office at Secretariat Porvorim, Goa. 2. Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh, Through its General Secretary, Shetye Sankul, 3rd Floor, Tisk, Ponda, Goa. ... Respondents Mr. P. K. Rele, Senior Advocate with Mr. N. Naik, G. Sardessai and Mr. Vijay Palekar, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Ms. R. Chodankar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. M. S. Sonak with Mr. V. Menezes, Advocates for Respondent No.2. 2 CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 1 ST AUGUST, 2008. O R D E R(Per N. A. BRITTO, J.) Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the interim Award dated 11-12-2007 of the learned Industrial Tribunal, Panaji. 2. We have heard learned Advocate General, learned Senior Counsel and learned Counsel, on behalf of the parties. 3. Petitioner-Company's Workmen are represented under the banner “Kamgarancho Ekvott” which is a majority union and “Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh”(Respondent No.2) herein which is a minority union. 4. There was a settlement between the Petitioner and the Respondent- Union which was due to expire on 31-12-2004 but before that the Respondent- Union raised a charter of demands on or about 19-1-2004 and the negotiations proceeded. Subsequently, there was an amicable settlement between the Petitioner and the said Union “Kamgarancho Ekvott” arrived at under Section 2(p) r/w Section 18(1) of the I.D. Act, 1948 but no settlement came about between the Petitioner and the Respondent-Union and as such the dispute between them was referred to by the appropriate Government by Order dated 24-2-2006 to the Industrial Tribunal, and on or about 18-5-2007, the Respondent-Union filed its 3 statement of claim, and subsequently on 18-7-2007 the Petitioner filed a written statement challenging the maintainability of the said reference. On 23-8-2007 the Respondent-Union sought interim relief, and, the Petitioner also filed an application on 21-7-2007 for an award in terms of the said settlement dated 29-4-2005. 5. On behalf of the Respondent-Union, it was contended that as a result of the settlement dated 29-4-2005 the workmen placed in similar position as that of the workmen of the Respondent-Union got enhanced wages of around Rs.2,700/- per month and the industries situated in the locality having lesser turnover than of the Petitioner were paying more wages. The learned Tribunal noted that the last settlement was on 22-2-2001 and since then the prices of essential commodities and the cost of living had increased and considering the same the workmen of the Respondent-Union ought to be given monetary benefits by way of interim relief and in case interim relief was granted to the workmen of the Respondent-Union that would bring them on par with the workmen of the majority union and there would be no disparity and therefore proceeded to grant interim relief to the workmen of the Respondent-Union from the date of the application on an average of Rs.2,500/- per month. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, has submitted that by way of interim award, the learned Industrial Tribunal has 4 brought about not only disparity but unrest amongst their workmen who are members of the majority union. 7. We are unable to accept the said submission as it appears to be factually incorrect. At the same time, learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondent-Union, upon instructions, has suggested that a sum of Rs.2000/- on an average be paid to the workmen of the Respondent-Union as a measure of interim relief. We are inclined to accept the said submission made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Union as the same is just, fair and proper, and, therefore, we proceed to modify the interim award dated 11-12-2007 accordingly. In other words, the workmen of the Respondent-Union would be paid a sum of Rs.2000/- on an average as interim relief. 8. Except for the said modification of the interim award, we are not inclined to entertain this Petition at this stage. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE RD