1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1550 OF 2010 TATA Communications Ltd. & anr. ... Petitioners v/s Maruti Ganpat Mane & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Surel Shah i/by ANS Law Associates for petitioners. Mr.A.P.Vanarase for respondent No1. 1 to 10. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 1ST JULY, 2010 P.C.: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. 1. The writ petition has been filed against the order of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Pune, dated 19.1.2010. By this order, the Industrial Court has refused to decide the preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that deciding the issue would lead to misery and jeopardy to the industrial peace. 2 2. It is true that in many matters it is advisable and even necessary that all issues should be decided together. However, when the issue of jurisdiction and maintainability of the complaint is raised on the ground that the appropriate Government is the Central Government, in my opinion, it would be advisable for the Industrial Court to decide that issue first. This is because, in case, it has no jurisdiction because the appropriate Government is the Central Government, it would be a waste of judicial time to decide issues on merits. Furthermore, in the present case, one Labour Court has already taken the view that the Central Government is the appropriate Government in respect of the Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. A large quantity of shares of this Company were divested and the petitioner Company has bought them. It was therefore necessary for the Industrial Court to consider as a preliminary issue whether the notification issued by the Central Government on 4.11.2004 declaring the Central Government to be the appropriate Government for the “controlled industry” engaged in the telegraph service which is controlled by the Central Government under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 would be applicable to the petitioner company. If the Central Government is the appropriate Government under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, then the corollary 3 must follow, that the complaint under the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act is not maintainable. 3. In my opinion, therefore, the impugned order of the Industrial Court must be set aside. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 5. The order dated 19.1.2010 passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 91 of 2008 is set aside. 6. The Industrial Court will consider whether the provisions of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act can be invoked by the complainants. 7. The petitioner is a “controlled industry” as defined under Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, the provisions of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act are not applicable. 8. Parties are permitted to lead evidence in respect of the preliminary issue. ..... 4 5