1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2711 OF 2008 Pune Zilla Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Sangh ..Petitioner. Vs. Suhas Shankar Mohol ..Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2721 OF 2008 Pune Zilla Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Sangh ..Petitioner. Vs. Subhash Sakharam Walgude ..Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2722 OF 2008 Pune Zilla Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Sangh ..Petitioner. Vs. Hanumant Shivaji Jagtap ..Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2739 OF 2008 Pune Zilla Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Sangh ..Petitioner. Vs. Sanjay Haribhau Pawar ..Respondent. ..... Mr. J. Shekhar i/b M/s. J. Shekhar & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. Nitin A. Kulkarni for the Respondent. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 21st April, 2008. P.C. :. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for 2 the Respondent waives service. By consent of the learned counsel, taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. Complaints of unfair labour practices were instituted under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 by the Respondent workmen alleging breach of item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. Disciplinary enquiries were held against all the four workmen who are Respondents to these proceedings, on the ground of unauthorized absence and their services came to be terminated after the enquiries were concluded. Admittedly, at the relevant time a wage reference was pending for adjudication before the Industrial Court and as a result the provisions of Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were required to be complied with. Since the services of the workmen were terminated without compliance of Section 33(2)(b), complaints of unfair labour practices were instituted by them. The Industrial Court directed the Petitioner to pay the salaries of the workmen for the month of March 2008 and to continue to pay the monthly salaries until the complaint is disposed of. Aggrieved by the interim order of the Industrial Court, the employer has moved this Court in the present 3 proceedings. 3. At the hearing of the Petitions which have been taken up together, since the Court has been informed that common questions arise in all the Petitions, Counsel appearing for the Petitioner stated on instructions that the Petitioner would (i) comply with the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and (ii) pay to the workmen the unpaid wages due and payable from the date of termination until the date on which an application is filed for approval of the action taken by the employer together with wages for one month as required by the proviso to sub section (2) (b) of Section 33. In view of the aforesaid statement which is duly accepted, counsel appearing for the Respondent workmen fairly states that the purpose of the complaints would be duly subserved and that no further direction would be necessary in the complaints pending before the Industrial Court. In the circumstances, by consent the impugned orders passed by the Industrial Court in this batch of petitions shall stand substituted by the aforesaid directions and the complaints are, on the request of counsel appearing for the Respondent workmen, dismissed as withdrawn. 4 4. An authenticated copy of this order issued by the office of this Court shall formally be placed on the record of the Industrial Court in the pending complaints forthwith. It is, however, clarified that all the rights and contentions of the parties in respect of the application that would be filed by the employer under Section 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are kept open and the Court shall dispose of that application on merits. *****