1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4695 OF 2009 Arvind K. Mali ....Petitioner V/s. B.V. Gopal Reddy & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.M.S. Topkar for the Petitioner. Mr.A.P. Vanarase, A.G.P. for the Respondents. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 3RD FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. Rule. By consent Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith. 2. The Petitioner has challenged the order of the Industrial Court allowing the Respondents’ Criminal Revision Application and setting aside the order of the Labour Court dated 1.2.2006 by which the Labour Court had issued process against the Respondents under Section 48(1) of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. 3. The Petitioner has filed the Criminal Complaint on the basis that the Respondents had failed to comply with the interim order passed by the Industrial Court directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to work with Respondent No.4 in the post in which he was working within fifteen days from the date of the order and till the final decision of the main complaint. It is of vital importance to note that the interim order dated 2 18.6.2005 was to operate “till the final decision of the main complaint.” 4. This order was challenged by the Respondents by filing Writ Petition No.1253 of 2006. This Court passed an ad-interim order dated 16.8.2006 staying the operation of the order of the Industrial Court. The Writ Petition was finally disposed of by an order and judgment dated 22.10.2007. The learned Judge recorded that the interim order passed by the Industrial Court need not be disturbed as a prima-facie case had been made out by the Respondent workmen. The Writ Petition was accordingly dismissed. The Industrial Court was directed to dispose of the complaint in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the order dated 18.6.2005. The effect of dismissal of the Writ Petition is that the interim order passed by the Industrial Court dated 18.6.2005 revived. Respondent No.4 ought to have allowed the Petitioner to work in the post in which he was then working “till the final decision of the main complaint.” 5. Respondent No.4 having refused to comply with the order dated 18.6.2005, the Petitioner filed the Criminal Complaint. As stated earlier, the Labour Court issued process against the Respondents. The Respondents’ Criminal Revision against the said order was allowed by an order of the Industrial Court dated 6.4.2009. It is important at this stage to note that the impugned order did not even refer to the fact that the Writ Petition had been finally disposed of by the said order dated 22.10.2007 and as a result thereof, the order dated 18.6.2005 stood revived. The Respondents were therefore bound to comply with the said order dated 18.6.2005 which they did. 6. It was submitted on behalf of the Respondents that the 3 Respondents subsequently refused to permit the Petitioner to work as there was no work available and on the ground that the Petitioner was only appointed on a temporary basis. I am afraid that this argument is not open to the Respondents. The order dated 18.6.2005 operated till the disposal of the main complaint. In the circumstances, even assuming that there was any justification for not providing the Petitioner any work, the Respondents ought to have sought a modification of the order dated 18.6.2005 and/or the order of this Court dated 22.10.2007. So long as any of those orders operated, the Respondents were not entitled to ignore them. 7. I will presume that the Respondents failed to comply with the order on a bona-fide misapprehension of the correct legal position. The same however is now clear to the Respondents. They must implement the said order dated 18.6.2005 subject of course to the right to have the same modified or set-aside. They shall do so on or before 8.3.2010 subject to any modification thereof, failing which the order of the Labour Court dated 1,2,2006 shall revive namely the process shall then be issued against all the Respondents. In the event of the Respondents complying with the order dated 1.2.2006, the same shall stand withdrawn. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and substituted by the above order. 8. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.