1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 89 of 2010 IN Writ Petition No. 4506 of 2009 [decided] [Aluminium Metal Poweders Kamgar Sangh Vs. Mah. Metal Powders Ltd.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr.B.M. Khan, Adv., for the appellant. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : 08th March, 2010. 1. Admittedly, the appellant had filed a Complaint of Unfair Labour Practice against notice of show cause under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act towards Item 1 of Schedule-IV of said Act before Labour Court. 2. The appellant had succeeded before Labour Court in getting interim order. Said order was ultimately vacated by Industrial Court in the Revision Application under Section 44 of the said Act. 3. The order of Industrial Court was not interfered with by the learned Single Judge. 4. In this appeal, the Judgment of Learned 2 Single Judge and judgment passed by Industrial Court are challenged. 5. Heard learned Adv. Mr. B.M. Khan for the appellant. 6. It is not in dispute that after action was taken by the employer furtherance to show- cause-notice due to vacation of interim relief, the remedy under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act can be resorted. 7. It is also not in dispute that Sub- section (2) of Section 30 of the Section of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act empowers the Labour Court to grant relief of “temporarily restraining the employer from continuing with the unfair labour practice complained of.” 8. In this situation, when Labour Court can, if satisfied on merits, grant effective relief, it is unnecessary to fall back upon revival of interim relief sought for. Though a complaint against show-cause- notice is maintainable, that does not mean that in all cases of notice of show cause, interim relief must follow. 9. On merits, this Court finds that it is not necessary to consider the case in the background of a reasoned order of Industrial 3 Court and that Single Judge of this Court. 10. It shall suffice to hold that in a complaint that may be filed against the order of dismissal, the observations contained in the Industrial Court's Judgment dated 7th October, 2009, and, if any, in the Judgment dated 20th November, 2009, passed by this Court while dismissing the Writ Petition, will not influence the merits of interim relief as may be prayed in view of employer's action of dismissal. 11. In the result, with above observations, Letters Patent Appeal is rejected. Judge Judge |Hedau|