1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2271 OF 2008 Mr.Banale Kanta B & Ors. ..... Petitioners V/s. M/s.Shalimar Paints Limited & Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Anand Grover, Sr.Advocate i/b Prakash Mahadik, for the Petitioners. Mr.P.K.Rele, Sr.Advocate a/w Mr.Piyush Shah, for Respondent No.1. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. DATED : JULY 10, 2008. P.C. 1. Rule. 2. The learned Counsel Mr.Piyush Shah waives service for Respondent No.1. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are permitted to be deleted from the array of parties. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, petition is heard finally at the admission stage. 3. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners challenged the order passed by the Industrial Court, Nashik in Revision ULP No.62 of 2007 and other connected revisions. By the impugned order dated 02-11-2007, a revision filed by the respondent company has been admitted and the 2 learned Judge of the Industrial Court by the order dated 02-11-2007 has granted interim stay against the order of the Labour Court and the said stay is continued till final disposal of the application. 4. The petitioners herein have filed individual complaints before the Labour Court challenging the order of the Management terminating their services on the ground that the action is in violation of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Labour Court by its order dated 08-10-2007 allowed the applications filed by the individual workman and the respondent herein was directed to continue the workmen in the employment or to pay them 100% wages until further order. Against the aforesaid order, the respondent preferred revision application being ULP No.62 of 2007. 5. The Industrial Court initially granted ex-parte interim stay against the order of the Labour Court and ultimately, the application for interim stay is allowed and ex-parte stay granted is ordered to be confirmed till final disposal of the revision application. It is the aforesaid order which is impugned at the instance of the petitioner by way of this petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the revisional court could not have taken any additional material on record or subsequent events while deciding the revision applications. It is submitted that on the 3 basis of this subsequent development to the effect that approval application has already been filed by the management that the Tribunal has stayed the order of the Labour Court. It is further submitted that the application submitted by the management for approval, cannot be said to be a part of the same transaction. It is further submitted that the Labour Court was not having aforesaid material with it and the revisional court should not have taken additional documents on record and ought to have sent the mater back to the Labour Court. 7. Mr.Rele, on the other hand, submitted that the application submitted by the management for approval of its action is a matter of record and the revisional court can always take into account such material. 8. During the course of hearing, it is agreed by both the learned Advocates that the Labour Court may be directed to decide interim application afresh and may take into account additional material if produced, on record and till the Labour Court decides the interim application for stay/injuction, the stay granted by the Industrial Court may continue. 9. In view of the consent prevailing between the learned Advocates in the matter, the impugned order of the Industrial Court as well as the order of the Labour Court in each of the complaint is set aside. The matter 4 is remanded back to the Labour Court to decide the applications de-novo and for that both the sides are permitted to lead any additional material if they so desire before the Labour Court. Till the Labour Court decides the question about the stay afresh, the stay order granted by the Industrial Court shall continue to remain in force. It is clarified that by adopting the aforesaid course neither side have admitted any factual aspect as the entire question about granting or refusing interim stay is left to the Labour Court and Labour Court may decide the same on the basis of material which may be placed before the Labour Court by the parties. 10. In view of this, the revision applications pending before the Industrial Court itself will not survive. Revision Applications also be treated as disposed of. Writ be sent forthwith to the Industrial Court for disposing the revision applications in view of the present order. The Labour Court is directed to decide the question of interim relief / stay as indicated in this order within a period of eight weeks from today and the stay order granted by the Industrial Court shall remain in force till Labour Court takes afresh decision in the matter. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on any of the points sought to be raised in the matter. The petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. 5 ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)