1 NM1777.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION KJ NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1777 OF 2009 IN APPEAL NO.128 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2507 OF 2005 National Textile Corporation (South Maharashtra) ) Limited, Unit of Kohinoor Mills and Ors. )..Appellants (Org.Respondents) Vs. Arvind Mahadev Gharat )..Respondent (Org.Petitioner) ---- Ms. Meena Doshi for the appellants in support of Notice of Motion. Shri P. M.Patel for the respondent. ---- CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 10.3.2011 PC :- 1 Heard Counsel for the parties. 2 NM1777.09.sxw 2 The application is for stay of operation of the order passed by the Industrial Court dated 13.6.2005 as also the order passed by the single Judge of this Court dated 22.9.2008 respectively. 3 The respondent had filed complaint before the Industrial Court at Mumbai bearing Complaint (ULP) No.370 of 1996 for alleged unfair labour practice within the meaning of items 5 & 9 of Schedule-IV of MRTU & PULP Act of 1971. The said complaint has been partly allowed by the Industrial Court on the following terms: ORDER “(i) Complaint is partly allowed. (ii) It is declared that the Respondents have indulged in the unfair labour practice within the meaning of item 9 of Sch.IV of the MRTU & PULP Act and they are directed to pay wages to the Complainant w.e.f 16.3.1996 till the date of closure of the Mill on 6.5.2002. All other attendant benefits shall also be paid to the Complainant by the Respondents. (iii) The Respondents shall pay the cost of Rs.500/- to the Complainant being the costs of the proceedings.” 3 NM1777.09.sxw 4 Against this decision, both the parties have filed cross writ petitions. The learned single Judge not only dismissed the petition filed by the management but has ordered that the management shall pay closure compensation in accordance with law as on 6.5.2005 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 6.5.2005 till date. Appeal filed by the management against the said decision has already been admitted on 6.5.2009. 5 Insofar as the order passed by the learned single Judge is concerned, the argument of the management proceeds on the basis that the learned single Judge has exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing direction which was not the relief claimed by the Complainant in the complaint filed before the Industrial Court. Insofar as the finding recorded by the Industrial Court is concerned, even the same is subject matter of challenge in the appeal before this Court against the decision of the learned single Judge. Indeed, the Appellant has also contended that there is no evidence on record that the Respondent was not employed 4 NM1777.09.sxw elsewhere during the relevant period to be entitled for the interim relief. 6 For the time being, we would proceed on the assumption that the appellant/applicant has made out prima facie case and for which reason, the appeal has also been admitted by this Court. The question is what is the interim arrangement to be observed by the parties during the pendency of the appeal before this Court. Considering the fact that the direction issued by the Industrial Court is to direct the management to pay wages to the Complainant for the relevant period on the finding that in fact as well as in law the Complainant continued to be in employment of the Mill until the Mill was closed on 6.5.2008. In that view of the matter, we would dispose of this application with direction to the management to deposit the amount as may be payable to the Complainant towards wages for the period between 16.3.1996 till 6.5.2002. The Complainant has already filed recovery proceedings on the basis of the order of the Industrial Court in which he has asserted that the amount would be around Rs.3,07,390/-. If it is 5 NM1777.09.sxw so, the management in the first place, shall deposit the said amount in this Court and it would be open to the respondent/complainant to withdraw the said amount by giving solvent security or bank guarantee of a nationalised bank with further undertaking that in the event, the management were to succeed in the pending appeal, the entire amount withdrawn by him or portion thereof as will be ordered by this Court will be brought back and deposited in this Court within the specified time along with interest thereon. In the event, the respondent/complainant fails to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant/management within a period of four weeks from the date of deposit, the office shall take steps to invest the said amount in appropriate fixed deposit scheme until the pendency of this appeal or till further order to be passed by this Court, whichever is earlier. 7 In our opinion, this arrangement would sub-serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is disposed of in the above terms. 6 NM1777.09.sxw 8 We make it clear that the interim stay to the order of the Industrial Court and of the learned single Judge referred to above as granted will continue to operate during the pendency of the appeal on condition that appellant/management shall deposit the amount referred to above within six weeks from today. In that event, the recovery proceedings filed by the respondent/complainant before the concerned authority shall remain in abeyance. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) 7 NM1777.09.sxw