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.442 of 2008 Vinci Technologies Pvt.Ltd. ...Petitioner V/s. General Kamgar Union (Red Flag) and others ...Respondents Mr.A.K.Jalisatgi for the Petitioner CORAM CORAM CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATED DATED DATED : 24th January, 2008 : 24th January, 2008 : 24th January, 2008 P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Complaint (ULP) No. 36/2006 has been filed before the Industrial Court at Thane under Items 1(b) and (6) of Schedule II and Items 9 and 10 of the Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 by the respondent no.1 union and in the said complaint an application for interim relief under Section 30(2) of the said Act was filed. The said application was allowed by the Industrial Court on 3-3-2007 with the following directions:- "Respondents are hereby directed not to provide work to the contract employees and give preference to the retrenched workers for the manufacturing activities of respondent no.2." 2 2. The present petitioner is the original respondent no.2 and respondent no.3 Dr.Rohit Shah is shown as the Managing Director of both the companies namely respondent no.1 and 2. The application for review of the said order dated 3-3-2007 was filed by the present petitioner and it came to be rejected on 27-9-2007. 3. It was contended that the factory located at R- 728, TTC Industrial Zone, Rabale, Navi Mumbai belongs to the petitioner company and by way of the lease agreement dated 30-9-2005 it was handed over to the present respondent no.2 company. The said company continued its operations but in December 2006 the petitioner company took over the factory again from the possession of respondent no.2 and the respondent no.2 before handing over the factory to the petitioner had terminated the service of all its workmen. It was,therefore,submitted that the said workmen represented by the Complainant union have no claim against the petitioner. 4. The lease agreement dated 30-9-2005 shows that the petitioner and respondent no.2 company have the common registered office. Mr.Rohit M.Shah claims to be the Managing Director of both the companies and Shri Jimit R.Shah who has signed this petition in his capacity as the Director of the petitioner company appears to be the Son of Mr. Rohit Shah. The functional integrality of 3 both the companies is prima-facie supported by these documents. However, it is for the company to lead evidence before the Court and prove that both the companies are separate companies and they have no functional integrality and they are required to be treated as two separate entities. As of now the order passed by the Industrial Court allowing the application at Exh.U-2 is based on evidence on record and it does not call for any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. 4. Hence, the petition is rejected summarily and trial of the complaint is expedited. [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]