KPP -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 130 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6667 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 158 OF 2011 Poona Radiators and Oil Coolers ... Appellant vs. Pune Labour Union and another ..Respondents Mr. D.J. Bhange for the appellant. None for the respondents. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & A.A. SAYED , JJ. DATE: JUNE 09, 2011. P.C. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 21st February, 2011 in Writ Petition No. 6667 of 2010. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the present appellant and confirmed the order of the Labour Court, Pune, in Reference (IDA) No. 463 of 2003. 2. The Respondent Union has raised an industrial dispute regarding payment of wages from 19th April, 2003 to 10th July, 2003. According to the Union, the action of the management in withholding the payment of wages is KPP -2- illegal, arbitrary and erroneous. The Labour Court allowed the reference against which petition was preferred before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge by giving cogent reasons declined to interfere with the order of the Labour Court. In paragraph 3 of the order, the learned single Judge has observed as under: “3. In my view, the Industrial Court has for cogent reasons refused to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner. In the present case, admittedly there was nothing on record to show that the workers had declared a strike. There was also no material or evidence to show that the employer had obtained a declaration that the strike, if any, was illegal. Therefore, the question of giving any undertaking to the Respondent did not arise. In their statement of claim in the complaint, the Union had contended in its Complaint that when the workmen reported for duty on 19/4/2003 in the first shift they were not permitted to enter the factory premises. A notice was put up at about 9.30 a.m. alleging that the workmen had indulged in a sit-in strike. Later, on the same day, another notice was put up on the notice on the notice board directing the workers to furnish an undertaking as a pre-condition to enter the factory.” 3. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that a notice was given by the management to the workmen asking them not to resort to shouting slogans at the gate and the demand raised by the Union was unjustified. It is required to be noted that in the complaint, the Union has averred that the workmen reported for duty on 19th April, 2003 but they were not permitted to enter the factory premises. The finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court and confirmed by the learned single Judge cannot be re- KPP -3- appreciated by this Court in this appeal. We accordingly do not find any justification in interfering with the order of the Labour Court which is confirmed by the learned single Judge. The Appeal and the Civil Application are accordingly dismissed. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. A.A. SAYED, J.