: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.176 OF 2009 K.V. Ramaswami . Whole-time Director . Larsen & Tourbo Ltd. ECC Division & Anr. ..Petitioners V/s. Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi & . Gumasta General Kamgar Sanghatna ..Respondent Mr.S.K. Talsania, Senior Counsel with Mr.Vijay H.Kantharia and Mr.Mahesh Londhe i/b M/s.Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the Petitioners. Mr.H. Kumar Vaidyanatha for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. : 1. By an order 12.1.2009 the parties were put to notice that the matter may be disposed of finally at the admission stage. 2. Rule. By consent the rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 3. The Petitioners have impugned an order dated 17.11.2008 passed by the Labour Court which reads thus :- "Order : Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant. Perused the Complaint. There is prima facie : 2 : evidence on record to proceed against the accused u/s 48 r/w sections 38 & 41 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 r/o 4.12.2008." . The order dated 30.9.2008 which is alleged to have been violated reads thus :- "ORDER BELOW EXH.C-2 (30.9.2008) Heard both sides, accordingly to Mr.Kantharia, the concerned persons are strangers. Adjourned for Say and Hearing. If at all the concerned employees are employed with the Respondents, then till next date, their Services shall not be terminated, expect by due process of law". 4. Admittedly the orders ceased to be in operation with effect from 23.1.2009. However the complaint wherein the impugned order was passed is dated 11.11.2008. 5. It is pertinent to note that the complaint proceeded on the basis that the Petitioners were not to terminate the services of the complainant without following due process of law and to maintain status-quo. 6. The Complainant’s advocate by a letter dated 2.10.2008 stated :- "I would like to inform you that the hon’ble industrial court has passed the order in the aforesaid complaint filed by the union and the hon’ble court has directed you to not to : 3 : terminate the services of the workmen whose names are mentioned in annexure-A of the complaint without following due process of law. You are therefore informed to comply with the order passed by the hon’ble industrial court and to provide the work to the workmen who are working at Penkarpada near Dahisar Checknaka, Mira Road (East), Thane, failing in which my client shall have no option but to initiate a criminal proceedings against you for the breach of order." By a letter dated 17.10.2008 addressed by the advocate of the complainant also proceeded on the basis that there was a blanket stay not to terminate the services of the workers whose names are mentioned in the complaint. Paragraph 2 of the letter reads thus :- "2. I submit that the Hon’ble Industrial Court has directed to your company to maintain the status-quo with regard to the employment of the workmen and not to terminate the service of the workmen, whose names are mentioned in the main complaint". 7. The order dated 30.9.2008 does not contain any such blanket direction. It specifically states that " If at all the concerned employees are employed with the Respondents then till the next date their services shall not be terminated except by due process of law". Thus if the persons are not employed by the Respondents company there is no question of the order operating against it. : 4 : 8. The impugned order states that what is perused is the complaint. A perusal of the entire complaint establishes clearly that the same was based on the stand taken in the complainant’s advocates said letter. 9. Further apart from a bare averment, nowhere in the complaint is there anything to suggest that the complainant is a permanent employee of the company. The complaint as filed discloses no offence/contempt of the order dated 30.9.2008. 10. The learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that there is absolute and a total bar to the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He submitted that it is not merely a matter of discretion but a question of jurisdiction. A High Court is barred from exercising power under Article 226, moment it is found that a remedy under Section 482 is available. He has even after seeking and obtaining time not invited my attention to any judgment in his favour. I am unable to accept the submission. 11. In the circumstances, the impugned order is quashed and set-aside. This order will not prevent : 5 : the complainant from taking out any fresh application after furnishing necessary details.