1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. APPEAL (L) NO. 271 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1341 OF 2008 The B.E.S.T. Workers Union .. Appellant Vs The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai .. Respondent Mr. M.D. Nagle for the Appellant Mr. Sudhir Talsania, Senior Counsel a/w Mrs. Kavita Anchan i/b M.V. Kini & Co for the respondent CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ DATE : 4th January, 2010 P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Nagle, the learned counsel for the appellant – Union. 2. Mr. Talsania, the learned senior counsel appears for respondent - Undertaking. 3. The appellant filed Complaint (ULP) No. 63 of 2008 under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 before the Industrial Court at Mumbai along with the application at Ex. U2 for RMA 6a.APPL271-09.sxw 2 interim reliefs. The said application was allowed by the learned Member on 5th April, 2008 and the Undertaking was directed to allow the complainant to enjoy the place provided to run the libraries at various depots / Central workshop at Dadar as before till final disposal of the complaint. The respondent – Undertaking challenged the said order in Writ Petition under lodging No. 1341 of 2008 and after hearing the parties, the petition was allowed by noting down the undertaking that no allotment shall be made in favour of any third party or any union of any of the 26 rooms till the Complaint is heard and decided finally. The appellant – Union is aggrieved by the said order and hence, this Appeal. 4. The substantial relief prayed for in the main Complaint is for directions to restore the library facilities in each of the 24 depots and Central workshop at Dadar as in the past. This prayer itself indicates that the facility of library was discontinued and therefore the union filed the complaint of unfair labour practices seeking to restore said facilities. The learned Member of the Industrial Court while allowing the application at Ex. U2 virtually granted the final relief prayed for in the Complaint. The learned single Judge rightly RMA 6a.APPL271-09.sxw 3 interfered in the said order and on the basis of the undertaking furnished by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the employer that during pendency of the Complaint and till it is finally decided, such facilities will not be extended to any union. 5. We are satisfied that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is based on equity and the Complaint presently pending, will be decided on its own merit. 6. No case is made out to cause any interference in the order passed by the learned single Judge and hence, this Appeal fails at the threshold and the same is hereby dismissed. 7. While dismissing this Appeal, we make it clear that this order will not cause prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties for deciding the complaint as well as any proceedings in this Court. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.] RMA 6a.APPL271-09.sxw 4 RMA 6a.APPL271-09.sxw