Lsp IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.524 of 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1521 of 2008 President,Maharashtra General Kamgar Mahasangh ...Petitioner v/s. M/s. Airport Authority of India Ltd. & 4 ors. ...Respondents Mr.N.M.Ganguli for the petitioner. Mr. Girish Kulkarni a/w. Mayur Shetty i/b. M.V.Kini & Co. for respondent no.1. Mr. Bhavik Manek i/b. Wadia Gandhy & Co. for respondentno.3. Mr. Hutoxi Tavadia a/w. H.V.Kode for respondent no.4. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : MAY 06, 2009. : MAY 06, 2009. : MAY 06, 2009. P.C. . By this motion, the Petitioners/Applicants pray for direction against Respondent No.1 for mandatory injunction to pay to the workmen concerned in Reference No.CGIT-58/2003 wages at Rs.1500/- per month in addition to the existing wages from 6/2/2007 during the subsistence of contract of employment in terms of order dated 6/2/2007 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai in above said reference. 2. This motion has been taken out in WP No. 1521/2008 which in turn challenges the decision of Respondent No.5 dated 27/2/2008. That order has been passed on the application filed by the Petitioner purported to be 2 under Section 33(C)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which in turn is founded on the interim order passed by the Tribunal dated 6/2/2007. The Government has taken the view that the said claim cannot be entertained under Section 33(C)(1) of the Act. Indeed, this decision is subject matter of challenge in WP No. 1521/2008 which has been admitted on 1/9/2008. 3. In my opinion, the relief now claimed by way of interim order which is obviously a mandatory relief as is sought in the motion cannot be granted until the main issue in the subject writ petition is finally answered by this Court. I am conscious of the fact that the order passed by the Tribunal on 6/2/2007 against Respondent No.1 is not stayed by this Court in Writ Petition filed by Respondent No.1 being Writ Petition No. 711/2007. However, grievance with regard to breach thereof will have to be made in the said proceedings. For the time being, I am only considering the Notice of Motion as taken out by the Petitioner in proceedings initiated under Section 33(C)(1) of the Act. It is not necessary for me to examine the efficacy of factum of taking over all the affairs by Respondent No.3 as back as on 4/4/2006 from respondent no.1 in which the workers/applicants are stated to be employed. Admittedly, Respondent No.3 is not a party to the reference proceedings as of now. Whether the order 3 passed by the Tribunal on 6/2/2007 can be said to be binding on the said Respondent is a matter to be addressed at the appropriate stage in the reference proceedings or for that matter in Writ Petition No. 711/2007 if the question so arises or is raised by the Applicant. I am informed across the bar by the Counsel for the Applicant that the applicants have already filed application in the reference proceedings for impleadment of Respondent No.3 on which orders are still awaited. 4. Suffice it to observe that no relief can be granted to the applicants in the present motion. The same is rejected with liberty to the applicant to pursue such remedy as may be advised and available in law which will have to be decided on its on merits. Accordingly, this motion is rejected. 5. In my opinion, it is appropriate that the present Writ Petition No. 1521/2008 and Writ Petition No. 711/2007 should be heard together for final hearing. 6. Ordered accordingly. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]