W.P. No.488 OF 2010 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.488 OF 2010 Standard Batteries Ltd. ... Petitioner V/s. Ramchandra J. Yadav & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.A.K. Jalisatgi for Petitioner Mr.R.D. Bhatt for Respondent No.1 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: AUGUST 4, 2010 P.C.: 1. The petitioner has approached this Court against the judgment and order of the Industrial Court in complaint (ULP) No.385 of 1994. This complaint was filed under Items 2(b), 4(f) and 5 of Schedule II and Item 5 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act by three workmen. The complaint has been dismissed in respect of two workmen. However, in respect of the respondent workman, the Industrial Court has held that he has been able to prove that the petitioner has committed an unfair labour practice under Items 5 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The petitioner has been directed to pay subsistence allowance to the respondent workman till the action against him is completed pursuant to the chargesheet dated 22.3.1994. 2. Mr.Jalisatgi, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had terminated the services of the workman on 17.2.1998 and in any event, the W.P. No.488 OF 2010 : 2 : respondent workman became aware that his services were terminated when this fact was placed on record before the Industrial Court in 2008. He further submits that the workman cannot claim subsistence allowance once his services have been terminated. 3. On a perusal of the order of the Industrial Court, in my opinion, there is no perversity in the order. The Industrial Court has noted that the advocate for the petitioner had stated that the petitioner would not terminate or dismiss the workman till the hearing of the U2 application was completed. Admittedly, the U2 application was not decided separately and the complaint was finally disposed of by the impugned order. Therefore, the undertaking given by the advocate continued during the pendency of the complaint. The Industrial Court has rightly therefore granted subsistence allowance till the services of the workmen are terminated in accordance with law. 4. Mr.Jalisatgi submits that breach of an undertaking given by an advocate on behalf of a party cannot amount to unfair labour practice. It is true that it may not amount to unfair labour practice. But when the employer does not pay subsistence allowance to the workman as required under the law it would certainly amount to an unfair labour practice. Besides this, the contention of Mr.Jalisatgi that there are no pleadings in support of the findings of the Industrial Court is not borne out from the pleadings on record. The complaint has been filed for payment of subsistence allowance as well. 5. Petition rejected.