- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.870 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.870 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.870 OF 2008 Mohit V. Thakkar ...Petitioner vs. The Associated Cement Companies Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Sachindra B. Shetye with Mr.Niranjay Mogre for the petitioner Mr.D.P.Adsule A.P.P. for State Mr.J.P.Cama,Sr.Counsel i/b M/s.Haresh Mehta & Co. for Respondent Nos.1 to 6 CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : JULY 25,2008 : JULY 25,2008 : JULY 25,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6. The learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 6 states that the Advocate on record will file Vakalatnama for the said respondent within a period of two weeks from today. 2. An application was filed by the petitioner under section 48 of the the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act,1971. A summons was issued by the learned Judge of the Labour Court. The contesting respondents herein preferred a Revision Application before the Industrial court. The order issuing summons was not disturbed by the Industrial Court in the Revision. The learned Member of the Industrial Court passed the following order : "1) The Ld. Trial Court is requested to dispense with - 2 - atendance of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 permanently and permit them to appear through their representative. 2) Accordingly, Revision stands disposed of. 3) R & P be sent to the Lower Court." 3. The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction on a revision application filed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 6, an order of exemption could not have been passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court. He submitted that by granting exemption by this method, the learned Member could not have by-passed the procedural requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. He submitted that the aforesaid direction issued by the learned Member of the Industrial Court needs modification. He submitted that the concerned Respondents can always apply before the trial Judge for grant of exemption. 4. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India for challenging the impugned order. 5. It is true that after the summons was served to the Respondent Nos.2 to 6, they will have to appear before the - 3 - learned Judge of the Labour Court and furnish such personal bonds as may be determined by the learned Judge. The bonds are required to be furnished to ensure that the said Respondents appear before the learned Judge of the Labour Court as and when they are called upon to do so by the learned Judge. 6. Therefore, a limited modification deserves to be made in the impugned order. 7. Hence, I pass the following order : i) The impugned order dated 4th April 2007 is modified to the extent that Respondent Nos.2 to 6 are hereby directed to appear before the trial Court within a period of six weeks from today. The said respondents shall furnish usual personal bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. ii) The Respondent Nos.2 to 6 will give notice to the Advocate appearing for the petitioner of the date on which they propose to appear before the trial court. iii) The parties and the concerned court to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. - 4 - iv) The petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE