IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3343 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 3343 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 3343 OF 2009 M/s.Rinku Silk Mills ...Petitioner vs. Bhiwandi Mehanatkash Mazdoor Union ...Respondent Mr.A.K. Jalisatgi with Mr.A.B. Desai and Mr.Navneet C. for the Petitioner. Mr.D.S. Joshi i/b. Mr.I.R. Kulkarni for the Respondent. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : MAY 4, 2009 DATED : MAY 4, 2009 DATED : MAY 4, 2009 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. The petitioner is a propriety concern and engaged in the business of manufacturing art silk fabrics. The respondent is a union registered under the Trade Unions Act. The respondent raised an industrial dispute which had been referred by the appropriate government for adjudication to the 4th Labour Court at Thane. At the fag end of the hearing of the said reference, the petitioner raised a preliminary objection challenging the very maintainability of the case before the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court observed that since the preliminary issue was raised at the fag end of the reference, the said issue would be decided alongwith the other issues. - 2 - Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 4th February, 2009 passed by the Labour Court, Thane, the petitioner filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case since the notification had been issued by the State Government under Section 2 Sub-clause 2 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and the petitioner’s activity was governed by the BIR Act, 1946 since the petitioner had employed for more than 20 employees and was already in the business of manufacturing art silk fabrics, the reference which was made under the Industrial Disputes Act was not maintainable. 3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the reference was pending before the Labour Court since last six years and that the respondent had already led the evidence and the matter was pending at the stage of cross-examination of the petitioner herein and that stage, this application - 3 - is filed by the petitioner only with the intention to protract the proceedings. He submitted that the Labour Court, therefore, had framed an issue about jurisdiction and the said issue was to be decided alongwith the other issues which were already framed. He submitted that therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by the impugned order dated 4th February, 2009. 4. In my view, there is much substance in the submission made by the Counsel for the respondent. The complaint is pending since 2003 in the Labour Court. The written statement was filed by the petitioner herein in November 2005. Though in the said written statement one of the grounds which is raised by the petitioner is regarding the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act, no application was filed by the petitioner for framing the preliminary issue in 2005 and that almost for a period four years, the petitioner kept quiet and only at the stage of cross-examination of the petitioner, this application is preferred. The Labour Court, therefore, under these circumstances, in my view, - 4 - was justified in giving a direction that issue of jurisdiction would be decided alongwith other issues. No case, therefore, is made out for interfering with the impugned order while exercising writ jurisdiction of this court. All contentions of the petitioner and the respondent in respect of the preliminary issue are kept open. 5. Writ petition, accordingly, is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)