Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1080 of 2008 I.G.Petro and Mysore Petro Chemicals Ltd. & anr. ...Petitioners V/s. Mysore Petro Chemicals Limited & ors. ...Respoondents Mr.Balasaheb Deshmukh for the Petitioners Mr.L.R.Mohite & Ms.Harshali Mohite for Respondent No.1 CORAM CORAM CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATED DATED DATED : 18th February , 2008 : 18th February , 2008 : 18th February , 2008 P.C. Heard Mr.Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Petitioners have filed Complaint(UP)No. 150/2006 mainly challenging the decision of the Enquiry Officer to allow petitioner no.2 to be defended by the representative and in the said complaint an application was filed seeking directions to the Enquiry Officer to allow the chargesheeted workman to be represented by a defence representative. The said application was rejected by the Industrial Court at Thane and, therefore, the petitioner no.2 approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 6819/2006 and the said petition was allowed on 22-11-2006 by setting aside the impugned order and permitting the petitioner to be represented by any of the members of the managing committee of the 2 trade union of which he is a member. This order came to be challenged in Laters Patent Appeal No. 67/2007 by the respondent company and the said appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench on 13-8-2007. Thus the purpose for which Complaint(ULP)No. 150/2006 was filed has been served and perhaps the complaint has become infructuous. A copy of said complaint has not been brought on record in this petition. 3. It appears in the said complaint(ULP)No. 150/2006, an application at exh. U-14 was taken out for additional interim relief. It was alleged that the Enquiry Officer was not recording the oral statement of management witnesses, the respondents were in a haste to complete the enquiry and the request was made by the chargesheeted workman to supply the documents and such documents were not supplied. On these allegations the petitioners sought directions from the Industrial Court to produce the documents and also to record the oral statement of the witnesses. The Respondent Company filed its reply to the said application (Exh.C-9) and it was pointed out that the relief sought was in no way connected with the reliefs prayed for interim relief and that the enquiry officer was proceeding in accordance with law and by following the principles of natural justice. 3 4. The Industrial Court on going through the averments and the submissions made by the respective parties across the bar noted that the complaint was filed for seeking directions to the Respondent to allow the Vice President of the union to represent the chargesheeted workman and the said request was already considered and consequently nothing further remained in the said complaint. The Industrial Court referred to the decision of this Court in the case of General Labour Union (Red flag) Mumbai v/s. Arjandas Metal Industries Pvt.Ltd. (2003 III CLR 85) and noted that for entertaining an application for interim-relief under Section 30(2) of the Act, the applicants must make out a prima-facie case of unfair labour practice and when the pending complaint itself was impliedly allowed by the judgement of this Court, there could be no fresh cause of action to entertain an application in the very same complaint where the grievance raised was totally different. The Industrial Court, therefore, recorded that the relief prayed for in the application was not connected with the reliefs prayed for in the main complaint which already stood allowed. 5. So far as merit of the case is concerned, the Industrial Court considered the grievance of the applicants and observed that when the enquiry was in progress, it would not be permissible to entertain a 4 challenge for the alleged violation of natural justice and the issue whether the enquiry was vitiated or it was not conducted in keeping with the principles of natural justice could be examined only after the enquiry is concluded and the findings of the enquiry are recorded against the chargesheeted workman based upon which he is charged. On the issue of documents the Industrial Court noted that the letters dated 26-9-2007 and 10-10-2007 were submitted on behalf of the chargesheeted workman seeking for directions to supply certain documents and those applications were still pending. It observed that the enquiry officer will have to take appropriate decision depending upon the relevancy of the documents and,therefore, when the application was pending, no directions could be issued. 6. It is well settled that a complaint of unfair labour practice cannot lie before the Industrial Court seeking directions against the enquiry officer but at the sametime in a complaint of unfair labour practice filed at an appropriate time, the validity of the enquiry can be considered as a preliminary issue and the Industrial Court was right in not entertaining the application filed by the petitioners at Exh.U-14 by the impugned order. The reasoning set out by the Industrial Court in the said order cannot be termed as grossly erroneous and, therefore, there is no case made out to 5 cause interference in the said inter-locutory order under Article 227 of the Constitution. 7. Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. A Copy of this order be placed before the enquiry officer by the Petitioner so that he decides the pending applications purportedly submitted by the petitioner seeking the production of certain documents, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two weeks therefrom, in keeping with the observations made by the Industrial Court. [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]