WP/1553/2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1553 OF 2000 Laxman Bhola Pandit ... Petitioner V/s. Varun Shipping Co. Ltd., Mumbai & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. R.S. Upadhyay for the Petitioner. Mr. N.G. Helekar for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 3 RD FEBRUARY, 2011. ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. This Writ Petition has been preferred against the order passed by the Labour Court, Mumbai on 30th December, 1999 in Application (IDA) No.299 of 1994, by which the Labour Court has allowed the application at Exhibit “C-11” filed by the respondent-Company. This application was filed by the respondent-Company on 8th July, 1999 requesting the Court to decide the maintainability of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short “the I.D. Act”), as a preliminary issue. The grounds on which the respondent-Company challenged the maintainability of the application were : (i). that the application suffered from gross delay and laches; (ii). that the application did not claim amounts payable under any Award or Settlement; WP/1553/2000 2 (iii). that the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No.317 of 1992 had discussed whether the petitioner was entitled to overtime wages. 2. The petitioner has filed his application under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act for : (a). Overtime wages from 1982 to 1992 at varying rates; (b). The loan deducted illegally in the month of September, 1992; (c). Balance salary for September, 1992, medical reimbursement and increments payable for 17 months till May, 1992 and a further amount of increments payable for a different period. 3. In its written statement, the respondent-Company has raised several objections including the aforesaid three objections. The Labour Court framed certain issues on 28th December, 1995. One of the issues framed was “Is the application legally maintainable?”. The respondent-Company filed an application at Exhibit C-11 on 15th April, 1999 requesting the Labour Court to decide the aforesaid issue as a preliminary issue in the light of the objections raised by it in its application. 4. The application at Exhibit C-11 was opposed by the petitioner by contending that all issues should be decided together and that no prejudice could be caused to either parties if that procedure was followed. WP/1553/2000 3 5. Unfortunately, the Labour Court while deciding the application at Exhibit C-11, which was an application merely to consider whether the maintainability of the application under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act should be decided as a preliminary issue, went into the merits of the dispute and allowed the application at Exhibit C-11. Instead of deciding the application at Exhibit C-11 in as much as whether the preliminary issue regarding maintainability should be decided as a separate issue, the Labour Court has embarked on an enquiry as to whether the petitioner was entitled to any amount under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act. The Labour Court has extracted passages after passages from various judgements. However, none of these observations are germane to the question which was expected to be decided by it in the application filed at Exhibit C-11. It appears that the Labour Court has decided the aforesaid issue as a preliminary issue without notice to the parties. It is apparent that the Labour Court went into the merits of the dispute regarding the entitlement of the petitioner to the aforesaid amount. 6. In these circumstances, the impugned orders are set aside as there is a complete miscarriage of justice. The Application (IDA) No.299 of 1994 is remanded to the Labour Court, Mumbai for deciding it afresh. The Writ Petition is allowed. WP/1553/2000 4 7. In view of the fact that almost 17 years have elapsed since the filing of the application, the Labour Court, Mumbai shall decide all the issues framed by it on 28th December, 1995 together, including the issue regarding the maintainability of the application. 8. The Application (IDA) No.299 of 1994 shall be decided within one year from today by the Labour Court, Mumbai, after permitting parties to lead evidence. 9. All contentions of both the parties are left open. 10. Rule made absolute. No orders as to costs.