1 wp1234-11.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1234 OF 2011 CEAT Ltd .. Petitioner versus Padmanabh V. Salian .. Respondent Ms.N.R.Patankar a/w Mr.V.P.Sawant for the petitioner. Mr.S.Z.Chowdhary for the respondent. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 12th September 2011. P.C.: . Heard both sides. This petition is directed against an interlocutory order of the Industrial Court whereunder the petitioner has been directed to let the respondent-complainant resume duties on and from 1st July 2011 and assign to him light work as indicated in the concluding paragraph of the order. Further, the petitioner was directed to abide by the order by providing work commensurate with what has been found by the Court below as an ailment which disables the respondent from undertaking heavy work or heavy duty. 2 wp1234-11.doc 2 From the record it is apparent to me that there is no prima facie finding that the petitioner is guilty of any unfair labour practice. The petitioner is stated to be guilty of said practice and particularly under Item No.9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short MRTU & PULP Act), but, that remains an allegation in the complaint because the complaint is yet to be tried and disposed off. What has come on record is that the respondent works as an operator in mixing department. 3 The petitioner is in the business inter alia of manufacturing of Tyres. The petitioner found that the employee/workman complained of back sprain and, therefore, he was unable to perform work requiring lifting of heavy objects. However, there was medical treatment provided and ultimately according to the petitioner the medical officer certified that the respondent is fit to resume normal duties and undertaking heavy work as well. However, the respondent alleged otherwise. 3 wp1234-11.doc 4 In a very lengthy order, the learned President of the Industrial Court has adverted to opinions of doctors and has found that the concerned workman must be provided light work or table work. According to me, the versions of the doctors differ to some extent. Therefore, once the respondent-complainant suffered sprain or back spasm while on duty and the petitioner produced a particular medical opinion, contrary to that relied on by the respondent, that a case is not made out for interim relief. According to the learned Judge, light work was given to one employee who suffered from paralysis and, therefore, subjective satisfaction either of the management or the doctor is not final and the management makes a distinction without any rational basis. 5 The whole order, to my mind, with greatest respect, proceeds on conjectures and surmises of the learned Judge. Ultimately, equity and sense of justice can prevail only if permitted by law. General opinions and notions of sympathy cannot override law in all cases. How a case of sprain in back or spasm can be equated with paralysis which paralyses a human being and incapacitate him, has not been clarified at all. That back pain or back spasm have been 4 wp1234-11.doc treated and that in this case the respondent-employee did take such treatment, but, medical opinions differ, according to the learned Judge. That itself is no ground for the learned Judge to impose his opinion and by his own perception issue the impugned direction. 6 Looked at from any angle, without any prima facie finding of unfair labour practice on the part of the petitioner-employer, the impugned direction could not have been issued. It cannot be sustained on the touchstone of the settled principles which are followed while granting interim relief. Therefore, neither a strong prima facie case nor balance of convenience nor irreparable loss and injury are made out in this matter. The respondent-complainant has not been sacked or dismissed, but, continues to be employed. If it is found that he was deprived of the concession sought by discrimination or the act complained is ultimately held to be an unfair labour practice in law, it is for the petitioner to suffer the consequences for their acts subject to their legal rights. In the complaint, after scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, the Industrial Court can very well issue such directions as are 5 wp1234-11.doc permissible in law including saddling the petitioner with monetary liabilities and claims. All such courses being left open, it was not advisable nor it was permissible in law to grant such orders and particularly binding and mandatory directions. In these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is accordingly quashed and set aside. The writ petition succeeds. However, the hearing of the complaint is expedited and it is clarified that all the observations made are tentative and prima facie and shall not influence the Court while trying the complaint which must be tried and decided on the basis of oral and documentary evidence led before the Court. All contentions in that behalf of both sides are kept open. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)