IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1126 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 659 OF 2009. Meringue Hotels Pvt. Ltd. ..... ..... ...Plaintiff V/s Mistry Prabhudas Manji Engg. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ..... Defendants. Mr.S.K.Talzania, Sr. Adv. I/by R.V.Pillai, Adv. for the plaintiff. Ms.Ranjana Todankar & R.B.Vaidya, Adv. for the defendant No.1. Mr.M.M.Agarekar, Adv. For defendant No.2. Mr.M.D.Nagale, Adv. For defendant No.3. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 21st April, 2009. PC: Heard. Though the notice of motion was placed for ad-interim relief, by consent it is taken up for hearing and final disposal. The plaintiff has instituted present suit claiming relief of permanent injunction against the defendants 2 to 4 who are trade unions so also against members of the said trade unions from entering into the premises of the plaintiff and/or in any manner interfering with plaintiff' s possession over the suit property. Few facts that are necessary to adjudicate the issues involved are narrated here in below: 1 2. Defendant No.1 agreed to sale land admeasuring 5669.13 sq. mtrs. for a consideration of Rs.45 crores to the plaintiff. Pursuant to the said agreement plaintiff has purchased the suit property under the registered sale deed on 4.4.07. Prior to the purchase of the property forming subject matter of the suit the defendant No.1 was carrying on business of fabrication and was having a factory at the suit site. While the business of fabrication was being run by defendant No.1, it had engaged about 170 workers. However the factory suffered losses and had to be closed down somewhere in December, 1998. On account of closure of the business the workers filed complaints under the provisions of Maharashtra Recognized Trade Union (PULP) Act. Sometime in the year 2007 a settlement was reached between the defendant No.1/employer and about 126 workers and thus the settlement was filed in the proceedings on 7.4.07 which culminated in disposal of several complaints filed by workers. While arriving at the settlement defendant No.2 acted as registered trade union. It has also come on record that another group of 32 staff members have also settled their claims. As of now 15 workers are litigating before various forums. The said 15 workers are being represented by defendant No.3-Union in the present suit. All the 15 workers are stated to be members of defendant No.3-Union. After purchase of the property the plaintiff has demolished the factory and office premises situated on the suit land and initiated the construction/development work on the said property. The plaintiff is a developer and proposes 2 to construct building on the said site. It is the case of the plaintiff that when it started construction activity the members of the defendant No.3-Union under the banner of defendant No.3-Union are trying to enter into the premises of the plaintiff purchased by the plaintiff from defendant No.1 who happened to be erstwhile employer of the employees. A grievance is also made that the members of the defendant No.3-Union are trying to interfere with possession of the plaintiff. With a view to show bonafides the learned counsel for the plaintiff has invited my attention to the indemnity bond executed by the plaintiff and duly submitted to the Labour Commissioner. The plaintiff has undertaken to indemnify the workers by making payment of their dues if found to be payable by erstwhile employer viz. Defendant No.1. The indemnity bond also makes a reference to the earlier settlement reached in between majority of the workers with defendant No.1 under which the defendant No.1 has paid a sum of Rs.1,45,67,565/-. Thus it is submitted that if and in case any claim is awarded in favour of the workers and against defendant No.1 the plaintiff would pay the same. It is also submitted that with a view to secure the amount of dues of workers on the same terms and conditions on which the majority of workers were paid their respective dues under the settlement dated 7.4.07 the amount of money would also be deposited in the Court by defendant No.1 in view of the agreement and understanding reached in between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Learned counsel for defendant No.1 has 3 also shown readiness and willingness to deposit the proportionate amount that would be payable to the 15 workers computed as per the terms entered in the settlement dated 7.4.07. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed on record a chart showing the approximate liability towards payment of dues of the workers/members of defendant No.3-union to be in the sum of Rs.14,47,880/50. The submission is that the Court may put the plaintiff to terms while granting interim relief. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has also placed on record the NOC issued by the Labour Commissioner. 3. Learned counsel for the defendant No.3-Union has opposed the notice of motion by contending that the suit itself is not tenable in view of section 60 of the MRTU (PULP) Act. In his submission dispute between the plaintiff and members of defendant No.3-Union is a dispute covered by item 5 of Schedule III of the act. It is then submitted that a complaint has been filed by defendant No.3 vide complaint No.51/09 which is pending on the file of Industrial Court and hence it is urged that this Court should not interfere in the dispute between the employer and workers. Perusal of the documents on record and the allegations made by the plaintiff and the reply filed by defendant No.3 reveals that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the plaintiff and the members of defendant No.3-Union. The workers who are members of defendant No.3-Union were employed as such by defendant No.1 when defendant No.1 was carrying on fabrication business in a factory situated at the suit site. 4 Thus the submission that the plaintiff would stand in the shoes of defendant No.1 and will be clothed with rights and obligations of employer cannot be accepted. The plaintiff has purchased the property at which place defendant No.1 was carrying on business by setting up factory wherein the members of defendant No.3 were employed. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the plaintiff and defendant No.3 and its members. Thus the objection raised by learned counsel for the defendant No.3 deserves to be rejected. I do not find any justification for the members of defendant No.3 to enter into the property which is purchased by the plaintiff and where the plaintiff is carrying out the construction/development. As there is no factory in existence now after the sale of the property by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff there is no need for the members of the defendant No.3-Union to visit the suit site and/or to make an attempt to disturb the possession of the plaintiff. Prima facie I find that defendant No.3 and/or its members have no legal right to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. In case ad-interim relief is refused to the plaintiff, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss, undue hardship and utmost inconvenience would be caused to the plaintiff. Whereas no prejudice or inconvenience would be caused to the members of defendant No.3- Union in the event if they are restrained from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff. In that view of the matter I am inclined to grant interim relief as prayed for by the plaintiff, however subject to 5 condition that the plaintiff and/or defendant No.1 deposits a sum of Rs.15 lacs in this Court within a period of two weeks from today and the plaintiff continuing to bind itself by indemnity bond executed on 26.6.07 and the conditions stipulated therein. Hence notice of motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to condition of deposit and indemnity bond referred to above. It is clarified that the Industrial Court shall proceed to deal with and dispose of complaint bearing No.51/09 pending on its file uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. 21.4.2009. 6