1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.973 OF 2009 Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd & ors .Petitioners -versus Miss Preeti Arvind Sawant .. Respondents Mr. J.P. Cama, for the Petitioners. Mr U.P. Bobde, for the respondent No.l Ms P.H. Kantharia, APP for the state. CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI, & R. G. KETKAR JJ DATED: 24th April, 2009 P.C. 1. The first petitioner is a company, the second petitioner is its Director and the third petitioner is its Manager. 2. It appears that the first respondent had filed a complaint in the Labour Court at Mumbai praying that it may be declared that the petitioners have engaged in unfair labour practices. It is the case of the first respondent 2 that her services were illegally terminated. The said complaint was filed on 28.11.2008. The Labour Court issued notice to the respondents and the matter was adjourned to 22.12.2008. The Roznama which is produced before us shows that on 22.12.2008, neither the petitioner nor its advocate was present and the matter was adjourned to 1.1.2009 for bailiff's report. On 1.1.2009, the bailiff's report was submitted in the Court and them matter was adjourned to 19.1.2009. We have perused the bailiff's report. It indicates that the third petitioner refused to accept notice. 3. On l9.1.2009 neither the petitioner nor their counsel was present before the Labour Court and as learned Judge was on leave, the matter was adjourned to 2.2.2009. On 2.2.2009, the Labour Court, passed exparte order and stayed the termination order dated l.9.2008 and the petitioners were directed to allow the first respondent to resume duty. Returnable date was fixed 3.3.2009. On 3.3.2009, the petitioner's made an application to the Labour Court to vacate 3 the exparte order which was operating against them. 4. On l6.3.2009 a criminal complaint was filed by the first respondent in the Labour Court, being Misc. Criminal Complaint (ULP) No.38 of 2009 alleging offence u/s 48(l) of the MRTU & PULP Act and praying for action for contempt of Court against the petitioners. First respondent inter alia prayed for issuance of process against the petitioners and for taking action against the petitioners in accordance with law. 5. On l8.3.2009 the process was issued by the Labour Court. On 9.4.2009, application for exemption was made by petitioner Nos 2 and 3 which came to be rejected on the same day. Admittedly on 9.4.2009, the Labour Court issued bailable warrant against the petitioners. In this petition, the petitioners have prayed for cancellation of the said bailable warrant. 6. We heard learned Counsel Mr. J. P. Cama, for the petitioner. He submits that the exparte order passed on 2.2.2009 could have in law operated only 4 upto 17.2.2009. He submitted that the exparte order was served on the petitioners only on 20.2.2009 and therefore, their not attending the Court prior to that cannot be taken against them. He submitted that petitioner No.1 is a reputed company. Petitioner Nos 2 & 3 are the Officers of the first petitioner. They will appear before the Labour Court in future. He submits that in the circumstances the bailable warrant be cancelled. 7. Learned Counsel for the first respondent has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 8. Having perused the bailiff's report, we are prima facie of the opinion that the petitioners have shown disrespect to the process issued by the Labour Court. Prima facie we feel that the Labour Court cannot be faulted for having issued bailable warrant. However, looking to the nature of dispute, we feel that both parties should concentrate on the main complaint which is filed by the first respondent. The petitioners should co-operate and see that the main complaint is disposed of expeditiously. 5 9. In the circumstances of the case, we feel, that without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is necessary to protect the petitioners for a period of two weeks from today so that they can make appropriate application for cancellation of warrant before Labour Court. Mr. Cama submitted that the petitioners will make such application. If such application is made the labour Court, shall consider it in accordance with law. If any exemption application is made by the petitioners personally or through their counsel if permissible in law that may also be considered in accordance with law. The bailable warrant shall not be executed for a period of two weeks from today. The petition is disposed of. 10. The parties to act on the authenticated copy. (SMT RANJANA DESAI,J) (R.G. KETKAR, J)