1 WP 5016.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5016 OF 2011 M/s Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. Plot No. 22, Chikalthana I A, Dist. : Aurangabad Through the General Manager. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S Bharteeya Kamgar Sena, Aurangabad. .... RESPONDENT Mr.T.K.Prabhakaran, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Y.I.Thole, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 06/09/2011 ORAL ORDER : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The respondent had filed the Complaint ULP No. 156 of 2010 on the apprehension of the unfair labour practice being sought to be committed by the petitioner. The respondent moved an 2 WP 5016.2011 application Exh. U-2 for interim order restraining the present petitioner from shifting the machinery and to allot the work to the present respondent. The Industrial Court allowed the said application. The present petitioner filed review application. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 4. Mr. Prabhakaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Industrial Court while passing the order in review petition has observed that his order would be inconsistent with the order passed in Complaint ULP No. 167 of 2010. The Complaint ULP No. 167 of 2010 was filed by All Marathwada Kamgar Union. In the said complaint, the notice of shifting the place of establishment was challenged. The Industrial Court in the said complaint rejected the application Exh. U-2, wherein same relief was claimed. The said order was confirmed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2740 of 2011, wherein on 25/04/2011 consent order was passed. The Order of the Industrial Court rejecting the application Exh. U-2 in Complaint ULP No. 167 of 2010 was not set aside. The learned counsel contends that all the workers of the present respondent Union have resigned and have also taken 3 WP 5016.2011 benefits. They have encashed cheques which were given to them pursuant to the resignations and only one worker remained namely Devidas, who had also joined in the Complaint ULP No. 167 of 2010. In such circumstances, the Industrial Court should have taken into consideration the changed facts and should have dealt with the review petition. The petitioner can not be compelled, in such circumstances, for allotting the work to the respondent and can not be restrained from shifting the machinery. 5. Mr. Y.I.Thole, the learned counsel for the respondent strenuously contends that the circumstances while passing the order in Complaint ULP No. 167 of 2010 are distinct than the one in the present complaint. The present workers of the respondent Union are not beneficiaries of any order passed in Writ Petition No. 2740 of 2011. Ex-facie, there is violation of the provisions of the statute. In the wake of the same, the Industrial Court has rightly considered the said aspect. Even by filing Say to the application Exh. U-2, the petitioner had accepted that it does not have any intention of shifting the machinery. In such circumstances, the impugned order is proper and need no interference. 6. The fact that Exh. U-2 in Complaint ULP No. 167 of 2010 is rejected and was for the same relief, is manifest from the prayers 4 WP 5016.2011 made in both the applications. The Industrial Court had rejected the application the interim relief in ULP No. 167 of 2010. The present respondent was also one of the respondents in the said complaint. The order in the said complaint was carried further to this Court. This Court had maintained the said order in Writ Petition No. 2740 of 2011 though granted some solace to the 15 contesting workers. 7. In the present case, it has been brought on record that the workers involved in the present petition had reported for their duties at Gandhidham. They had resigned and had accepted the benefits, though this fact is disputed by the respondent. However, I am not required to give any finding on the said aspect as the rival claims can be dealt with by the Industrial Court in this regard. I have only to consider the prima facie case. Once the order is passed in the companion matter, to which the present respondent is also party, then in such circumstances, the said order would also be binding on the present respondent and the contrary order to the same would not be sustainable. 8. In view of the above conspectus of the matter, I quash and set aside the impugned orders. 9. At this stage, Mr. Thole, the learned counsel for the 5 WP 5016.2011 respondent prays to stay the present order for the period of four ( 4 ) weeks. The said request is opposed by Mr. Prabhakaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, taking into account the fact that this Court in Writ Petition No. 2740 of 2011 has directed the Industrial Court to dispose of the Complaint itself within four ( 4 ) months from 01/06/2011, there would be stay to the present order till 30/09/2011. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 5016.2011