1 LPA 172/10 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 172 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6103 OF 2009 Chatrapati Rajaram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. .. Appellant V/s Appaso Usman Pathan & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Neel J. Helekar for the appellant. Mr. M.S. Topkar for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 26TH AUGUST 2010 P.C. : 1. Admit. 2. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order dated 20 July 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6103 of 2009. 4. The relevant facts are that the respondent no.1 had filed B.I.R. Application No. 17 of 1984 before the Labour Court at Kolhapur. To that application, the present appellant – Chatrapati 2 LPA 172/10 Rajaram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. was joined as respondent no.2. That complaint was disposed of by the Labour Court by its order dated 20th June 2000. The operative part of the order of the Labour Court reads thus: “(a) The first opponent is hereby directed to reinstate the Applicant as labour with continuity of service and 40% back wages. (b) In the circumstances, no order as to costs. (c) This order shall take effect on from 20.07.2000.” Thus, the relief of reinstatement was granted only against the 1st respondent to that complaint, viz. Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd., and no relief was granted against the 2nd respondent who is the present appellant. The respondent no.1 thereafter filed a Complaint ULP No. 638 of 2001. To that complaint, initially the appellant was not joined as a party but it appears that subsequently the appellant was joined as a party. The only prayer in that complaint was that the complainant should be reinstated as per the order of the Labour Court dated 20th June 2000. Thus, the only relief claimed in the complaint was the implementation of the order of the Labour Court dated 20th June 2000. That complaint has been decided by the Labour Court by 3 LPA 172/10 its judgment dated 30th January 2009. By that order, the Labour Court directed the appellant to comply with the order of the Labour Court dated 20th June 2000. That order was challenged by the appellant by filing Writ Petition No. 6103 of 2009. The learned Single Judge by her order dated 20th July 2009 has dismissed that petition. Hence, this appeal. 5. The short submission made on behalf of the appellant is that though the appellant was joined as opponent no.2 to the B.I.R. Application No. 17 of 1984, no relief was granted against the appellant and the only order was made against the opponent no.1, i.e. Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. Complaint ULP No. 638 of 2001 was filed only for the implementation of the order dated 20th June 2000 which was not against the appellant. Therefore, it was argued before the Labour Court in Complaint ULP No. 638 of 2001 that as the Labour Court has not granted any relief against the appellant, no order can be made in the complaint against the appellant. That argument was rejected. Relying upon an agreement between the Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. and the appellant of the year 1986, it is pointed out that this agreement was very much in place when the complaint B.I.R. Application No. 17 of 1984 was decided on 20 June 2000 and, therefore, if it was possible for the respondent no.1 to seek 4 LPA 172/10 relief against the appellant on the basis of that agreement, then it should have been done in the B.I.R. Application No. 17 of 1984 itself. That not having been done, it cannot be done in a subsequent complaint. This argument has been rejected by the learned Single Judge. 6. Perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge shows that according to the learned Single Judge, a relief on the basis of the agreement of 1986 was claimed against the present appellant in B.I.R. Application No. 17 of 1984, but the Labour Court did not grant that relief because the respondent was not able to prove that agreement. It is common ground that in B.I.R. Application No. 17 of 1984 no relief was granted against the respondent no.1 though such relief was sought against the appellant. Complaint ULP No. 638 of 2001 was only for implementing the previous order passed by the Labour Court in B.I.R. Application No. 17 of 1984. Had the appellant not been a party to B.I.R. Application No. 17 of 1984, possibly on the basis of the agreement of 1986, implementation of the order dated 20th June 2000 could have been sought against the appellant. But as the appellant was made a party in B.I.R. Application No. 17 of 1984 and as the Labour Court did not grant the relief against the appellant, the only method of getting any relief 5 LPA 172/10 against the appellant was challenging the order passed in B.I.R. Application No. 17 of 1984. In proceedings instituted for enforcement of that order, relief could not have been granted against the appellant. 7. In this view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, the order passed by the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge will have to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. The order dated 30th January 2009 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint ULP No. 638 of 2001 is set aside. That complaint is dismissed as also the order dated 20th July 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6103 of 2009 is set aside. Civil Application No. 218 of 2010 is disposed of. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.)