1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4720 OF 2007 M/s. Vasai Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. ..Petitioner. Vs. Maharashtra Rajya Bhachat Pratinidhi Sanghthana & others ..Respondents. .... Mr. R.M. Joshi for the Petitioner. Mr. A.S. Rao for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 31st March, 2008. P.C. : Rule, made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the Respondents waives service. By consent of the learned counsel, taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The challenge in these proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is to the validity of an order passed by the Industrial Court on an interim application in a complaint of unfair labour practices. The Petitioner is a co-operative bank while the First Respondent is a union representing commission agents. 2 The bank issued terms and conditions to the commission agents enumerating the rate of commission and other conditions. On 24th May, 2001 the bank notified revised rules governing the commission agents with effect from 1st June, 2001. Under the rules the commission agents were entitled to commission at the rate of 2.5% on their deposits. Besides the aforesaid stipulation which was contained in Clause 8, it was provided by Clause 14 that all the rules and any rules changed in future and rules made applicable to the agents will be binding on them. Subsequently on 11th October, 2006 the Board of Directors revised the rate of commission to be paid to the commission agents and by a circular dated 11th October, 2006 the rate of commission was reduced from 2.5% to 1.5%. That led to the institution of a complaint of unfair labour practices in which an interim application was preferred. By the order impugned in these proceedings the Industrial Court has stayed the letter issued by the bank and has directed the bank not to make any unilateral or illegal changes in the terms and conditions of service until the main complaint is decided. 3 3. On behalf of the Petitioner it has been urged that before passing an interlocutory order, the Industrial Court should have entered a finding, prima facie, about the commission of an unfair labour practice which has not been done. That apart, it was urged that the bank had valid reasons for reducing the commission since it had been revealed that the collection charges were in excess of what the bank was realizing by way of interest. Moreover, it was urged that there is not even a prima facie finding that there is a breach of any settlement or award within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV to the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. It was urged on behalf of the Petitioner that as a matter of fact the rules which were issued on 24th May, 2001 contemplate in Clause 14 that all rules and the rules as they may be changed in future and as made applicable to the agents would be binding upon them. 4. There is a considerable degree of merit in the submissions which have been urged on behalf of the Petitioner. The bank has reduced the commission payable from 2.5% to 1%. 4 The rules of 24th May, 2001 contemplate in Clause 14 that the rules were liable to be changed and the rules as may be applicable to the agents would be binding upon them. Prima facie, at this stage the reasons on the basis of which the rate of commission was reduced cannot be discarded as being without basis or substance. In the event that the union succeeds in the complaint of unfair labour practices, it would be open to the Industrial Court to grant consequential reliefs but that would be after the trial of the complaint is over. At the present stage, there is prima facie not even a finding of unfair labour practices or that there was a breach of an award or settlement under Item 9 of Schedule IV. The complaint, it may be noted is under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV. Even a bare perusal of the order would not reveal any finding prima facie of the commission of an unfair labour practice. The order was stayed by an ad interim order dated 21st June, 2007 passed by a Learned Single Judge in these proceedings. Having regard to all these circumstances, it would be appropriate and proper if a direction is issued to the Industrial Court to dispose of the complaint expeditiously. In the 5 circumstances, the Petition is allowed. The interim order dated 20th April, 2007 passed by the Industrial Court on the interim application is quashed and set aside. The Court has been informed that the complaint has been listed before the Industrial Court on 23rd April, 2008. It would be open to the Industrial Court to set down a time schedule for disposal of the proceedings expeditiously. However, while disposing of this Petition it is clarified that all the observations contained in this order are confined to the disposal of the application for interim relief. The Industrial Court shall dispose of the complaint on merits without regarding any of these findings as an expression on conclusive opinion on the merits of the rival contentions of the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. *****