1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 303 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4005 OF 2010 (Suresh Gulasbrao Gher .v. M/s. Shah Nanji Nagsi) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri S.J. Khandalkar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.S. Ghate, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 03RD AUGUST, 2011. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that the labour Court, Nagpur did not commit any error by holding in the award dated 04th January, 2010 that it was not permissible for the appellant to seek the reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in view of the bar under the provisions of Section 59 of the MRTU and PULP Act. The learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly held that there was no jurisdictional error in the award passed by the labour Court and the writ petition filed by the appellant was liable to be dismissed. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that since the complaint filed by the appellant under the MRTU and PULP Act was withdrawn by the appellant, the provisions of Section 59 of the MRTU and PULP Act would not apply as no effective steps were taken in the complaint filed by the appellant before the labour Court. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Consolidated Pneumatic Tool Co. (I) Ltd. .v. R.A. Gadekar and others, reported in 1986(1) CLR, 322. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge rightly held that the bar of Section 59 of the MRTU and PULP Act applied in the facts of the case as effective steps were taken in the complaint filed by the appellant before the labour Court as the respondent 2 had filed the reply-cum-written statement before the labour Court and the interim relief application filed by the appellant was rejected after hearing the counsel for the parties. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent, since the ULP (Complaint) was withdrawn later on, the bar of Section 59 applied in the facts of the case. The learned Counsel for the respondent relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Jacob Chinnannan .v. Sudarshan Aluminium Industries Ltd., Nasik and another, reported in 2002(III) CLR 129 to submit that after the written statement is filed, it cannot be said that there was no initiation of proceeding or no effective steps had been taken in the matter. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that the labour Court was justified in holding that the bar of Section 59 of the MRTU and PULP Act applied to the facts of this case. The judgment reported in Consolidated Pneumatic Tool Co. (I) Ltd. .v. R.A. Gadekar and others (cited supra) cannot come to the rescue of the appellant as it is observed in the said judgment that where the complainant does nothing more than filing a complaint under the Act and withdraws it before any effective steps are taken, then the provisions of Section 59 of the Act would not apply. Such is not the case here. In the ULP (Complaint) filed by the appellant, effective steps were taken as the respondents had filed the written statement and the application for grant of interim relief was rejected after hearing the counsel for the parties. The judgment reported in Jacob Chinnannan .v. Sudarshan Aluminium Industries Ltd., Nasik and another (cited supra) supports the case of the respondent. In the result, the LPA is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.