:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4134 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 734 OF 2008 Force Motors Limited (formerly Bajaj Tempo Ltd.) ..Petitioner Vs. Rosario D’Souza and anr. ..Respondents Mr. Sudhir Talsania, Senior Advocate i/by M/s. Sanjay Udeshi and Co. for petitioner. Mrs. Anjali Helekar for respondent no.1. Mr. M.D. Nagle for respondent no.2. Mrs. Gayatri Singh for the applicant in C.A. No.734 of 2008. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date Date Date : March 24, 2008. : March 24, 2008. : March 24, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. This petition arises from the Judgment and Order dated 28/9/2006 rendered by the Industrial Court at Pune thereby allowing Complaint (ULP) No. 309 of 2003 partly. The Industrial Court held that the petitioner - employer was guilty of unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 (for short the :2: Act) by deducting the membership subscription of Rs.100/- per employee for the year 2003 and the said finding is under challenge in this petition. 2. Before approaching this court, it appears that the petitioner-company had filed Review Application (ULP) No. 5 of 2006 which came to be dismissed by the Industrial Court on 9/3/2007 and on the same day, the Company was permitted to deposit the amount of Rs.100/- per employee in the court. 3. The respondent no.1 is the power of attorney holder of the employees engaged by the petitioner - company in its factory at Akurdi, Pune had filed Complaint (ULP) No. 309 of 2003 under Section 28(1) read with Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act. The substantial prayers in the said complaint read as under:- "(b) To restrain the Respondents from deducting Bonus for 2003 from workmen towards membership fees of Bharatiya Kamagar Sena for the year 2003, without the authority of each individual workmen in writing to the First :3: Respondent. (c) To restrain the Respondents from deducting bonus for 2003 for any contribution towards Bharatiya Kamagar Sena. (d) To direct the Respondents to repay the amount deducted towards union subscription of Bhartiya Kamagar Sena of the workers, from the Bonus for the year 2002 in October 2002, with interest thereon, without effecting any deductions for payments to Bharatiya Kamagar Sena." 4. An application for interim relief under Section 30(2) of the Act was also filed in the said complaint along with an affidavit in support thereof. The respondent no.2-Union had opposed the application for interim relief. By an ad-interim order the court had directed the petitioner - compnay not to deduct any amount from the bonus payable for the year 2003. Respondent No.2 - Union filed an application at Exh.UA-3 praying for modification of the ad-interim :4: order and further prayed that by retaining the amount of Rs.100/- with the employer, the remaining amount of bonus be disbursed to every workman eligible and subject to the final out come in the complaint. Under these circumstance, the Industrial Court on 18/10/2003 passed an order and disposed the application at Exh.U-2 and this was an order by consent of both the complainant as well as respondent no.2-Union. The Industrial Court directed the petitioner - company to pay the amount of bonus to every eligible employee by deducting an amount of Rs.100/- which could not be paid to any person or Union till the complaint is finally decided and this direction was in respect of 1767 employees who had executed power of attorney in favour of the complainant. The Court further directed the Company to retain the deducted amount as deposit with it. The petitioner-company, therefore, deducted the amount of Rs.100/- and disbursed the remaining amount of bonus to every such employee. The Company filed another application at Exh.C-10 before the Industrial Court because the respondent no.2 submitted a letter dated 21/10/2004 for deducting the amount of Rs.100/- by way of donation from the bonus payable for the year 2004 and the Industrial Court by its order :5: dated 28/10/2004 declined any such direction and directed the application to be treated as filed. It is thus evident that for the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 no deductions were made at the request of respondent no.2-Union. 5. It is the contention of the petitioner - company that when the court itself directed it by its order dated 18/10/2003 to deduct the amount of Rs.100/- from each of the 1767 employees who had executed power of attorney in favour of the complainant and paid the remaining amount of bonus to every workman, the Industrial Court was in manifest errors in holding that the said deductions amounted to an act of unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. It is specifically pointed out that the deductions were so made only in obedience of the order passed by the court and when the complaint was filed the deductions were apprehended. Though the witness of the Company, while in the witness box before the Industrial Court, admitted that if the complaint was not to be filed, at the request of the respondent no.2-Union such deductions would have been effected. But that by :6: itself would not be a reason for the Industrial Court to give a declaration against the company that it is guilty of unfair labour practice by effecting such deductions, when the deductions are in obedience of the order passed by the very same court. Hence, the finding of unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act against the company is unsustainable. 6. Hence, the petition succeeds partly. The impugned order is quashed and set aside to the extent of its declaration of unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act against the company. The deposited amount by the company and presently lying with the Industrial Court is directed to be paid to each of the 1767 workmen. The Industrial court to nominate an officer like the Registrar or the Investigating Officer to disburse the said amount and each of the workmen shall be identified either by the complainant or by the respondent no.2-Union or any other Union, if any, or in the alternative by submission of the Identity Card issued by the petitioner - company. The disbursement shall be effected within 30 days from today. Writ to go the :7: Industrial Court forthwith. 7. Civil Application No. 734 of 2008 does not survive and shall stand disposed off. (B.H. (B.H. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.)