1 wp-6509-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO. 6509 OF 2009 Bosch Chassis Systems India Ltd. ..Petitioner Vs. Bosch Chassis Systems Kamgar Sanghatana and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr.C.U.Singh Senior Counsel with Ms.Neha Mehta and Mr.A.Mehta i/b M/s. Haresh Mehta and Co. for Petitioner .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 4th , 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the Respondent-Union though served. 2. The petitioner-company had filed Complaint (ULP) No.118 of 2009 before the Industrial Court at Pune. The complaint was in respect of Unfair Labour Practice under Items 1, 2a, 2b, 5 of Schedule III of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act by the workers. It was apprehended that in view of the notice received from the Union, the workers would go on an 2 wp-6509-09 illegal strike. In the said complaint, application for interim relief came to be preferred wherein the main relief sought was that the Union and its members be restrained from resorting to any stoppage of work from 18th July, 2009. This application came to be rejected by the Industrial Court by order dated 17th July, 2009. Hence, this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Industrial Court has not considered properly the provisions of Section 24 (1)(a) and (i) of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P.Act. He has placed reliance on the decision of Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and Ors. Vs. Balkrishna Pen Ltd. & Ors. Reported in II CLR 1987 374 wherein it is observed that if there is an application for interim relief, the Court will have to dispose it of on the basis of its `prima facie view ’ of the matter and the second stage will be the stage when the Court records its finding whether the strike or lock-out is legal or illegal 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are some observations in the order impugned in this petition that the proposed strike is not in violation of the provisions of the Unfair Labour Practice Act. The petitioner apprehends that this might close the issue as far as the recording of the Court whether the strike is illegal or not. Obviously, these observations in this order has been made only to dispose of the application for interim relief and therefore, they are prima facie. It is seen that the main matter is still pending before the Industrial Court. 3 wp-6509-09 The impugned order has been passed only on an application for interim relief and the Industrial Court has yet to reach the stage of declaration which will be decided in the pending complaint. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain this petition at this stage as in my view, the best course would be to expedite the pending complaint. The complaint be decided by the Industrial Court as expeditiously as possible and preferably within two months from date of receipt of writ. The complaint be disposed of without being influenced by any observations in the order dated 17th July, 2009. All contentions of the parties are left open. 5. Petition is disposed off. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]