1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 561/2009 [Voltas Refrigerators Employees ..vs.. The Hon. Member Industrial Court - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Purohit, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Wandile, AGP for respondent no.1 Shri R.E. Moharir counsel for the respondent no. 2 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 23, 2009. By this petition, the petitioner impugns a common order passed by the Industrial Court, Chandrapur on 29.12.2008 on two applications filed by the petitioner for grant of interim relief. The petitioner had by moving the applications before the Industrial Court sought a direction to the respondent no.2 to start production of refrigerators from a specific date. The respondent no.2 has specifically denied the prayer made in the applications. The applications were rejected by the impugned order dated 29.12.2008. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order dated 29.12.2008, it appears that the Industrial Court did not commit any error in rejecting the application merely by directing respondent to pay monthly wages to the employees concerned regularly. The Industrial Court rightly held that when there was absence of production, the question of paying production incentive to the employees did not arise at all. The Industrial Court observed that as per the terms in the agreement the benefit of production incentive was applicable after the completion of particular 2 limit of production. It was clear from the record that the employees were directed to sit at home and the monthly wages were paid to them, though they were not attending the establishment. The Industrial Court held and rightly so, that at the interim stage it could not be said hat because of non-receipt of production incentive, the service conditions of the employees had been prejudicially affected requiring the notice of change as alleged by the respondent. The documents were produced on record to show that the management had made attempts to discuss the matter with the representatives of the union so as to start the production. The court observed that the complainant union did not dispute that the management was not assessing and considering this situation to start the production. In such circumstances, the Industrial Court did not commit any error in rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner with a direction to the parties to sit across the table and try to arrive at an amicable settlement. The order does not suffer from any error, much less a jurisdiction error, so as to interfere with the same. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. It is however, needless to mention that the observations made by the Industrial Court and this court in the impugned order and the present order shall not prejudice the Industrial Court while deciding the main matter as these are prima facie observations made by the courts while considering the interlocutory applications which are filed by the parties before the courts. JUDGE SMP