1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3604 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3058 OF 2005 Smt. Sangubai Vaijinath Sutar and others ...Applicants Versus Associate Dean and Principal Pashu Mahavidyalaya and Pashu Vidnyan Mahavidyalaya Udgir, District Latur and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. K.M. Nagarkar, advocate for the applicants Mr. P.G. Rodge, advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr. R.G. Shirsath, advocate for respondent No.3 ..... CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE OF RESERVATION : 14.08.2009 OF ORDER DATE OF PRONOUCNEMENT : 18.08.2009 OF ORDER PER COURT:- 1 This application is filed praying that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein be directed to pay last drawn wages to the applicants in terms of Section 17-B of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 from 1.4.2001 till November, 2005 and to continue to pay the same every months regularly from December, 2005, during pendency of writ petition. 2 2 It is the case of the applicants that the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court have held in their favour and same order is under challenge before this Court in the writ petition, which is filed by the applicant management and therefore, they are entitled under Section 17-B of the Industrial Dispute Act, for the last wages drawn, during pendency of the writ petition. Learned counsel has invited my attention to each and every contentions raised in the application as well as to the fact that out of seven employees five applicants have filed affidavit saying that they are not in gainful employment elsewhere. 3 The counsel appearing for the non applicant/original petitioners have filed reply to the application and submitted that if the judgment and order passed by the courts below are passed taking recourse to the provisions of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 (for Short “MRTP and PULP Act”), the application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Dispute Act is not maintainable. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Divisional Controller, MSRTC Akola Vs. Syed Shabir Jani s/o Syed Alisaheb, reported in 1997 (II) CLR 1146 and submitted that in view of the said judgment, the application filed by the applicants herein is not maintainable and therefore, the application is required to be rejected. 3 4 After hearing the counsel appearing for the applicants and the counsel appearing for the respondents and after perusal of the judgment in the case of Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Akola (supra), I am of the view that, in view of the pronouncement by this Court in the above mentioned judgment in para 10, this civil application is not maintainable. The relevant extract in para 10 of the said judgment is as follows:- “thus I am clearly of the opinion for the reasons aforesaid that no application moved under Section 17-B of the Industrial Dispute Act, would be maintainable in pending writ petition arising from an order of reinstatement passed by a Court under MRTU and PULP Act.” It is not in dispute that the order passed by the Labour Court is under MRTU and PULP Act. Even revision, which was filed by the petitioners herein was under Section 44 of the said Act. Therefore, in my considered view, in view of the pronouncement of this Court in the aforesaid judgment, this application cannot be entertained and the same is rejected. 5 Coming to the further arguments of the learned counsel for the applicants that though such application is not maintainable in view of the aforesaid pronouncement of this Court, in the above mentioned 4 judgment the court has observed that the power to grant interim relief in exercise of power vested in the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the prayer can be entertained. The learned counsel would submit that therefore, this Court can consider the prayer under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Since the application filed by the applicants is under Section 17- B of the Industrial Dispute Act, at this juncture, there is no question of considering any other prayer except made in the application. However, since the petition is pending from 2005 and the applicants are out of employment, it would be desirable to direct the Registry to fix this matter for final hearing on 21.11.2009. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, civil application is rejected. Registry is directed to place the writ petition No. 3058 of 2005 for final hearing on 21.11.2009. *****