WP/4279/2010 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4279 OF 2010 N.S.S. Logistic (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. Goods Transport Labour Board for Greater Mumbai & anr. ... Respondents Mr.M.D. Modgi for Petitioners Mr.A.V. Bukhari for Respondent No.1 Mr.S.S. Pakale for Respondent No.2 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 P.C.: 1. The Petition arises from the order passed by the Respondent No.2 Mathadi Board which the petitioners have challenged on the ground that the order has been passed despite the contrary evidence on record. It has also been challenged on the ground that the Board had no jurisdiction to vary or amend its earlier order dated 18.1.2010. The challenge is also to the effect that the Board has not considered the fact that the civil Court had granted an injunction against the workers, temporarily restraining them from using force to jeopardise the functioning of the plaintiff company i.e. the petitioners herein. It is contended that the very fact that the civil Court has passed this order indicates that the workers had to be restrained from entering the premises of the workplace because of their violent behaviour and, therefore, the responsibility of the arrears of wages payable having mounted cannot WP/4279/2010 : 2 : be attributed to the petitioners. 2. In my opinion, these submissions are without merit. The order which was passed on 18.1.2010 directs the petitioners to show cause as to why the amount of Rs.13,64,101.44 should not be recovered from it pursuant to the order passed by the Board on 22.12.2009. On the basis of certain affidavits filed by the workers, the Board varied its order dated 22.12.2009 and reduced the amount payable to Rs.12,71,040.36. In my opinion, if the Board has reduced the amount, although unilaterally, the petitioners cannot challenge that aspect because no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners in that behalf. Apart from this, the Board while passing the order on 7.4.2010 modifying the order of 22.12.2009 has considered all aspects of the matter and reiterated the fact that there are certain arrears of wages that are payable to the workmen and has granted the amount. 3. Apart from this, the Board has heard the petitioners and has given sufficient opportunity to the petitioners before proceeding to pass the order. In fact, an affidavit has been filed by the Secretary of the Board who has averred that although the proceedings were adjourned on seven occasions, the petitioners chose to remain absent on most days. The Board, therefore, carried out its enquiry and found that Rs.12,71,040.36 was payable as wages and levy for 57 workers for the period from 8.6.2009 to 31.10.2009. 4. As regards the contention that the blame for not giving work to the workmen of tolli No.2304 and 2369 cannot be attributed to the petitioners, in my opinion, the submission is without any merit. There is an order passed by the Industrial Court on WP/4279/2010 : 3 : 16.9.2009 wherein the Industrial Court has directed the respondents in the complaint, who include the petitioners herein, to allot the work to the members of the complainant union i.e. Respondent No.2 herein with an intimation to the Board. It appears that a suit was filed by the principal employer before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wada and by an order dated 30.1.2010, the defendants in the suit i.e. the respondent union herein has been restrained from acting or using force to jeopardise the functioning of the plaintiff. The petitioners cannot take recourse to this order since in any event, the Industrial Court in complaint (ULP) No.135 of 2009 had passed an order against them, directing them to allot work to the workmen who are members of the respondent union. In my opinion, there is no case made out for interference with the impugned order. 5. Petition rejected. 6. The amount deposited may be withdrawn by the respondent Board after a period of two weeks from today.