vs s IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.5403 OF 2008 PETITION NO.5403 OF 2008 PETITION NO.5403 OF 2008 Ramanuj Kamla Rai & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. M/s.Seth Industries Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Sagar Joshi for Petitioners Mr.C.U. Singh for Respondent No.1 Mr.S.K. Talsania for Respondent No.6 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: AUGUST 21, 2008 AUGUST 21, 2008 AUGUST 21, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Affidavits filed by the workmen are taken on record indicating that they support the Petitioners and have not accepted the terms of any settlement. Copies be served on the respondents. 2. The petition challenges an interim order passed by the Industrial Court in a complaint filed by the petitioners under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The petitioners claim to be the workmen of Respondent No.3. The main grievance in the complaint filed by the petitioners is that the respondents have signed settlement with the representative union Kamgar Utkarsh Sabha (for short, ‘KUS’) i.e. Respondent NO.9 in the petition. The : 2 : petitioners contend that this settlement has been signed contrary to the provisions of section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act since the Union has accepted a deemed date of closure of the respondent companies. Similarly, the petitioners have also challenged the settlement entered into by the respondent companies with Mumbai Textile Mazdoor Sabha i.e. Respondent No.8 to the Petition. They have pleaded in the complaint that they are members of Maharashtra Samartha Kamgar Sangathana which is Respondent No.10 to the petition. The petitioners have contended in the complaint that the provisions of both the settlements signed with the KUS and Mumbai Textile Mazdoor Sabha are contrary to the provisions of law and therefore they are not bound by those settlements. The petitioners have also contended that it is the Maharashtra Samartha Kamgar Sangathna which represents them and looks after their interests. The Maharashtra Samartha Kamgar Sangathna has not filed the complaint. However, it appears that after the complaint was filed, the Maharashtra Samartha Kamgar Sangathna has also entered into a settlement with the respondent companies on the same terms as the settlement with the two other unions. The settlements which have been signed by the KUS i.e the representative union with the companies has been countersigned by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Thane. All the settlements have also been signed by the Respondent No.6 to the petition : 3 : i.e. the developer of the property as a confirming party. 3. The Industrial Court while considering the application for interim relief has observed that the workmen though members of the Maharashtra Samartha Kamgar Sangathna had not accepted the settlement signed by the Maharashtra Samartha Kamgar Sangathna. The Industrial Court has also observed that since the representative union had signed the settlement, no other union or workmen could contend that the settlement was not acceptable to them, in view of hte provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. The Industrial Court has also noted that approximately 8.5 crores have been deposited with the Labour Commissioner as dues payable under the settlement to the workmen including the petitioners. In this view of the matter, the Industrial Court has refused to grant any interim relief. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that unless the interim reliefs as prayed for by the petitioners are granted, they would not be protected if the complaint is decided in their favour. Several reliefs have been claimed by the petitioners by way of interim relief. One of the reliefs claimed is that the workmen who are residing in the quarters provided by their employers should not be evicted without following : 4 : due process of law. A prayer is also sought that the Respondents be restrained from removing the plant and machinery, raw materials lying on the premises and from selling the movables/immovable properties of the respondent companies by creating third party interests in the property. Another prayer which is sought is for an injunction against the respondents from developing the property through an outside agency. 5. Admittedly, from 1986, the Companies have stopped the manufacturing process. The present complaint has been filed in 2006. The factory premises have been demolished and the construction undertaken by Respondent NO.6 to the petition has commenced from July 2007 and is in progress. Therefore, in my view, the Industrial Court has rightly refused to grant the interim reliefs sought. Besides, prima facie, no interim relief could have been granted to the petitioners as the representative union had signed the settlement. A settlement has also been signed on the same terms by the union representing the petitioners i.e. Maharashtra Samartha Kamgar Sangathna. Therefore, the Industrial Court has rightly refused the interim relief. 6. The submission of the learned advocate for the petitioners is that in view of the judgment of the : 5 : Supreme Court in the case of Oswal Agro Furane Ltd. & Anr. v/s. Oswal Agro Furane Workers Union & Ors., (2005) 3 SCC 224, no agreement contrary to the provisions of section 25-O could be signed. This submission can always be considered by the Industrial Court when it finaly disposes of the complaint. The Industrial Court has thus committed no error in refusing the interim relief to the workmen especially since the premises are being developed from 2007 onwards pursuant to the requisite permissions being obtained by Respondent No.6. Apart from this, the Division Bench of this Court on 23.4.2008 in Writ Petition No.2769 of 2008 filed by the petitioners has accepted a statement that the developer would file an undertaking in which he would accept the responsibility to make payment of any amount found payable to the workmen by any competent court. 7. Petition rejected.