Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1385 of 2008 Mr.Sangamlal R. Pandey & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. The General Manager The Tata Mills & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.S.S.Pathak & T.R.Yadav for the Petitioners Mr.Manoj Dalvi, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 CORAM CORAM CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATED DATED DATED : 7th March, 2008 : 7th March, 2008 : 7th March, 2008 P.C. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners who are the individual employees of the Respondent Mill. They have approached the Industrial Court and filed Complaint(ULP)No. 29 of 2007 under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV read with Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 (the Act for short). In the said complaint an application for interim-relief at Exh. U-2 was filed and the same was partly allowed. The Complainants filed another application at Exhibit U-10 and prayed for a restraining order against the management from removing the machines on which they were working. The Industrial Court by its order dated 10-10-2007 rejected the application at Exh. U-10. Both these orders are challenged in this Petition. 2 2. On the application at Exh.U-2, the Industrial Court directed the management to train the Complainants to operate India Roll machines and to ask Complainants to work on such machines only after the said training as per the agreement between the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh and the Company and until then the Company had been directed to protect the wages of the Complainant. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Industrial Court granted the relief which was not prayed for in the application at Exh. U-2 and it was necessary to have a status-quo order. It was further submitted that no notice of change was given and the Company had installed the new machines without any notice. 4. The Industrial Court had initially directed the Investigating Officer to visit and the said Officer submitted his report on 6-7-2007. The said report clearly indicates that there was an agreement between the Union and the Company and, therefore, the Industrial Court was right in directing the company to provide for training to the Complainants. So far as the application at exh.U-10 is concerned, when the machines were to be replaced by new machines as per the agreement with the recognised union, there was no question of issuing an injunction against the management from removing the old 3 machines. The Investigating Officer’s report has been considered by the Court and, therefore,the relief prayed for in application at Exh. U-2 and U-10 cannot be granted to the Petitioners. The order passed by the Industrial Court at Exh.U-2 is an equitable order. Complainants have been protected on their wages during the intervening period. Hence, the Petition is rejected. [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]