1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WRIT PETITION NO.2192 OF 2009 India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. ..Petitioner. Vs. Bharatiya Kamgar Sena ..Respondent. .... Mr. J.P. Cama, Senior Advocate with Mr. Saikumar Ramamurthy and Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy for the Petitioner. Mr. M.D. Nagle for the Respondents. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 24th November, 2009. P.C. : 1. A complaint of unfair labour practices has been filed under items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 by the Respondent. The substantive relief that has been sought in the complaint seeks a direction to the management to provide normal and usual work to employees whose names appear at Annexure A to the complaint at the International Airport. The management filed an application on 6th June, 2008. In paragraph 3 of the application it 2 was averred that the management had framed a Voluntary Retirement Scheme for regular employees and pursuant thereto many of the employees had accepted Voluntary Retirement; nearly 90% of the staff working at the duty free shop at Mumbai accepted Voluntary Retirement. The management submitted that keeping the minimum office staff in the new office where the Respondent had shifted outside the Airport, the balance of the staff after acceptance of Voluntary Retirement had been relocated to other offices of the management in India. Having regard to the aforesaid defence and the defence raised by the management in regard to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court, the following two issues are directed to be framed : 1(a) Does the management prove that the complaint of unfair labour practices has been rendered infructuous for the reason that the duty free shop has been closed and the permanent staff at the duty free shop has either been granted voluntary retirement or has been relocated to the office of the management elsewhere in the country; 3 1(b) Does the management prove that the Industrial Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; 2. Issue No.1(a) shall in the first instance be tried as a preliminary issue. Should it become necessary for the Industrial Court to decide the issue of jurisdiction, this issue is being directed to be tried with the other issues having regard to the principle that has been laid down by the Supreme Court in M/s. Cipla Ltd. v. Ripu Daman Bhanot1 and in the earlier judgment in National Council for Cement and Building Materials v. State of Haryana2. Since the issue as to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court to entertain and try the complaint would depend upon which is the appropriate government under Section 2-(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and this is an issue on which evidence would have to be adduced, it would be appropriate if this issue is deferred for trial together with the other issues in the complaint. However, insofar as issue No.1(a) 1 1999 (82) FLR 225. 2 1996 II CLR 234. 4 is concerned, it is desirable for the reasons already indicated that the issue should be tried as a preliminary issue. 3. The Industrial Court is requested to dispose of the issue after hearing the parties expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from today. In the event that the Industrial Court holds that the complaint has been rendered infructuous, nothing further would survive. If the Industrial Court comes to the conclusion that the complaint still subsists, all the other issues shall be heard and disposed of at the trial of the complaint. The Petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions. ****