IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3888 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 3888 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 3888 OF 2009 Bhumiputra Kamgar Sena & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. M/s.Monatona Tyres Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Y.M. Pendse for the Petitioners. Mr.Shailesh S. Pathak for Respondent No.1. Mr.G.S. Baj for Respondent No.2. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : MAY 5, 2009 DATED : MAY 5, 2009 DATED : MAY 5, 2009 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is challenging an order passed by the Industrial Court confirming ad-interim relief which is granted in favour of the respondent no.1 company in the complaint filed by the company bearing Complaint (ULP) No.185/2007. Brief facts are as under :- 3. The petitioner is a registered trade union under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1971. The respondent no.2 is a recognised trade union. The respondent no.1 is a company which is carrying on - 2 - business of manufacture of tyres. The respondent no.1 company filed complaint under the MRTU and PULP Act on account of their apprehension of commission of unfair labour practices as defined under Item 5 and 6 of Schedule III of the Act by the petitioner herein. In the said complaint, it was alleged that there was inter union rivalry between the petitioner and respondent no.2 and therefore, there was an apprehension of unfair labour practice. In the said complaint, an application for interim relief was filed. Ad-interim relief was granted in favour of the respondent no.1 company by order dated 25th July, 2007 restraining the respondents therein i.e. the petitioners and the respondent no.2 herein from resorting to any agitational activities or any other act which was likely to disturb the smooth functioning of the complainant’s factory in and around 300 meters of the factory area. They were also restrained from preventing and obstructing the ingress or egress of the vehicles for transport carrying raw materials therein. They are further restrained from obstructing the ingress and egress of the employees. Though the said order was served on the petitioner and - 3 - respondent no.2 union, almost for a period of two years, no application was made by the petitioner herein for vacating the said ad-interim order. Thereafter, written statement was filed by the petitioner herein in January 2009 and immediately, an application was made for vacating ad-interim relief which was granted by the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court, however, after hearing both the sides was pleased to confirm the ad-interim relief. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Counsel for the petitioner firstly submitted that no reasons have been assigned by the Industrial Court for confirming the ad-interim order. Secondly, it was submitted that the Industrial Court no where had observed prima facie case was made out by the complainant for confirmation of the ad-interim relief. It was submitted that unless the Industrial Court first come to the conclusion about the prima facie case being made by the complainant, it could not have confirmed the ad-interim order. Thirdly, it was submitted that the - 4 - interim order was very widely worded and as such, the petitioner’s right of making peaceful demonstration also had been taken away. It was, therefore, submitted that the said order, in any event, needs modification. Lastly, it was contended that in the said application for interim relief as also in the complaint, no case was made out of unfair labour practice under Item 5 and 6 of Schedule III to the said Act. 5. Counsel for respondent no.1, on the other hand, submitted that almost for a period of two years, no steps were taken by the petitioner herein and it was only after a fresh charter of demands had been raised by the recognised union - respondent no.2 herein, the petitioner had filed an application for vacating ad-interim relief. He submitted that the said fresh negotiation in respect of charter of demands was in progress. In all probability, a statement would be arrived at between the recognised union and the respondent no.1 company within a short period of time and the only intention of the petitioner was to disrupt the said negotiation which was going on between - 5 - respondent nos.1 and 2. It was further submitted that in the complaint itself, averments were made pointing out the various acts committed by the members of the petitioner-union who had attempted to enter the factory premises of the company and had tried to threaten the other workmen to join their union, as such after the court was satisfied that prima facie case was made out, interim relief was granted in favour of respondent no.1. 6. Counsel for respondent no.2, on the other hand, submitted that respondent no.2 was recognised union and out of 1200 workmen, respondent no.2 had a membership of 856 workmen and as such, the respondent no.2 was entitled to represent the workers. He submitted that the process of negotiation in respect of fresh charter of demands was in progress since the period of earlier settlement had expired. He submitted that if the ad-interim order is vacated, the members of the petitioner union were likely to disrupt the said process. 7. In my view, the submission made by the Counsel - 6 - for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Admittedly, there is rivalry between the two unions. Specific averments have been made in the complaint in which allegations have been made and instances have been cited regarding various unfair labour practices which are allegedly committed by the members of the petitioner union. The Labour Court, therefore, has passed an order which, in my view, does not cause any prejudice to the members of the petitioner-union. The Industrial court in order to maintain the industrial peace has directed that no agitation should be initiated within 300 meters of the factory premises and has further restrained the members of the petitioner-union from preventing ingress and egress of goods etc. and of employees. The Industrial Court, has after taking into consideration these facts, felt that the interim order, under these circumstances, needs to be confirmed, particularly, because negotiation between the parties in respect of fresh charter of demands had reached at an advanced stage and the settlement between the recognised union and the respondent no.1 company was likely to take place within a short period of time and therefore, the interim - 7 - order has been confirmed. In my view, the petitioners can very well carry out peaceful demonstration beyond 300 meters of the factory area. No case is, therefore, made out for interfering with the interim order passed by the Industrial Court while exercising writ jurisdiction of this Court. The hearing of the complaint is expedited. 8. Writ petition is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)