1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8398 OF 2010 M/s Anil Engineering through its Partner E-75/7, MIDC, Waluj, Aurangabad. ... PETITIONER VERSUS Maharashtra Samarth Kamgar Sanghatna, through General Secretary Vishnu Nagar, Behind Akashwani, Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri B.R. Kawre, Advocate for petitioner Shri U.S. Sawaji, Advocate for respondent ..... CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 27th September, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard respective counsels appearing for parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, petition taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2. Order passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Aurangabad on 14.7.2010 in Misc. Reference (I.D.A.) No.2/2009 in Reference (I.D.A.) No.24/2007 is subject matter of challenge of this petition. The respondent Maharashtra Samartha Kamgar Sanghatna, through its General secretary presented an application seeking reference of 2 dispute to the Labour Commissioner, Aurangabad and on consideration of the application, the Labour Commissioner, Aurangabad was pleased to refer the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court. On receipt of the reference, same was numbered as I.D.A. No.24/2007. A statement of claim was presented by the respondent, wherein a relief in respect of reinstatement of the workers along with continuity of service and back wages was claimed. It is the contention of the Second Party i.e. the respondent, that the First Party i.e. the petitioner has orally dispensed with services of the employees, who are the members of the Second Party, by impugned oral orders since the year 2006. The act of termination of services of the employees who are the members of the Second Party, by the employer is illegal and in violation of the provisions of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The First Party i.e. the petitioner herein did not cause appearance in the matter. As such, the reference was decided exparte. The Reference Court allowed the reference and granted the relief as claimed by the respondent/ Labour Union. The employer (petitioner herein) presented an application seeking recall of the order passed exparte by the Court. However, the application came to be rejected. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner/ employer that initially the Labour Union presented a complaint to the Industrial 3 Court being Complaint (ULP) No.79/2006 claiming a direction to the employer not to terminate the services of the members of the complaint Union. The complaint was presented under the provisions of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. However, the complaint came to be dismissed. The employer (petitioner herein) was required to present the complaint bearing ULP No.79/2006 seeking a restraint order against the respondent Union and its members from committing the acts of unfair labour practices. A restraint order was sought against the Union as well as employees from abetting, gherao, shouting slogans, squatting or any type of nuisance, assault demonstrations, erecting tents, holding meetings etc. inside or outside the factory premises and residence of the complainant and within 500 meters radius of the premises of the Company. The Company was required to approach the Court on account of unruly behaviour of the members of the respondent Union. On presentation of the complaint, an injunction as prayed for was granted by the Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad in view of the order passed on 24.9.2006. It is the contention of the petitioner/ employer that all the individual employees of the Company, who were engaged through the Contractor did tender letters of resignation to the Contractor. They have also furnished letters in respect of resignations as the members of the Union. However, without disclosing these facts, an 4 application seeking reference to the Labour Court was presented and the orders were secured by the respondent/ Union. It is the contention of the employer that the members of the respondent/ Union are not at all the employees of the Company. They were engaged through the Contractor and as such, are not entitled to claim relief against the Company. The petitioner wanted to bring all these aspects before the Court. However, because of certain intervening developments, the Company could not prosecute the litigation properly. It is further contended by the petitioner that the production activities of the Company were at standstill because of unruly behaviour of the employees since 2006 onwards and the interruption in production activities continued almost for two years. With these contentions, the petitioner contends that the order passed by the Labour Court needs to be recalled and the Company needs to be extended an opportunity to raise propser defence before Labour Court. 4. On the other hand, it has been contended by the respondent / Union that the employer has willfully avoided to cause appearance in the matter and allowed the proceedings to continue. The employees are out of employment since 2006 and they are put to hardship. The order passed by the petitioner/ employer in respect of termination of services is ex-facie illegal. There is no justifiable 5 reason for granting indulgence in favour of the employer. 5. I have perused the application as well as the impugned order. It is evident that, all the facts were not disclosed to the Labour Court while the order under reference was issued. It is necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case to extend a opportunity to the employer to meet the allegations against the Company/ employer. At the same time, it is also required to be taken into account that the employees are fighting litigations since 2006 and they are required to be suitably compensated. Taking into consideration all these aspects, I am of the view that, while directing to extend further opportunity to the employer to meet the claim raised by the respondent/ employees -- Union, the employer/ petitioner needs to be put to terms in respect of deposit of amount in Labour Court as a pre-condition. The petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.2 Lacs with the Labour Court within a period of four weeks from today and on depositing the amount, the respondent/ Union, for and on behalf of the employees, shall have liberty to withdraw an amount of Rs.1 Lac. Rest of the amount shall be invested in a fixed deposit, for a period of six months. The impugned order passed by the Labour Court on 14.7.2010 is quashed and set aside. The Labour Court is directed to extend an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner (First Party) as well as 6 Second Party and proceed to decide the reference afresh in accordance with provisions of law. The Labour Court shall to decide the reference as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months. Needless to mention that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court on 18.4.2009 also shall be deemed to have been quashed and set aside. 6. Rule is accordingly made absolute. R.M. BORDE JUDGE