Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8888 of 2007 Pune Zilla Kamgar Karmachari Sanghatana ...Petitioner V/s. The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. ...Respondents Mrs.Anjali Ranade for the Petitioner CORAM CORAM CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATED DATED DATED : 21st January, 2008 : 21st January, 2008 : 21st January, 2008 P.C. Mrs. Ranade, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner union states that the impugned order below Exhibit U-2 has been passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint(ULP) No. 188/2007 and not in Application(ULP)No. 188/2007 and in the said complaint the retrenchment notice issued under Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is under challenge and admittedly the said notice was issued on 31-7-2007. The said complaint has been filed on behalf of 33 retrenched workmen. 2. The Respondent Company in its reply pointed out it was employing less than 50 workmen and,therefore, it was not required to obtain prior permission of the Government of Maharashtra for effecting retrenchment and 2 this position has not been seriously disputed by the petitioner. 3. It is on this basis that the Interim relief application filed by the present petitioner has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 7-9-2007. 4. The Industrial Court held that the retrenchment has already been effected by offering compensation and the letters sent under RPAD were refused by some workmen but atleast 6 of them had accepted the same. At the sametime, once the order of retrenchment was issued and it was refused to be accepted by the workman concerned, the remedy for the aggrieved party would be before the Labour Court by filing a complaint of unfair labour practice under Section 28 read with item no.1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. 5. I do not find the reasoning set out by the Industrial Court insupport of the impugned order to be suffering from any errors apparent on the face of the record. Mrs. Ranade contended that the union was entitled to file the complaint of unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV contending that the action of retrenchment is per se illegal and in breach of Section 25F as well as 25G of the I.D. Act. Even if this submission is accepted for the time being, the 3 remedy of individual workman to challenge the order of retrenchment by filing a complaint before the Labour Court is not taken away and this Court has held that once the termination by whatever mode has taken effect, the remedy for the concerned workman is to challenge the same by filing a complaint before the Labour Court. The view taken by the Industrial Court cannot be termed as perverse so as to call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. 6. Hence, I am satisfied that the impugned order does not call for any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution and the petition is rejected summarily. [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]