IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.5894 OF 2007 PETITION NO.5894 OF 2007 PETITION NO.5894 OF 2007 1.1.1. The State of Maharashtra .. Petitioner The State of Maharashtra .. Petitioner The State of Maharashtra .. Petitioner (Orig.Respt) (Orig.Respt) (Orig.Respt) vs vs vs Shri Shri Shri Appasaheb Babu Shinde .. Appasaheb Babu Shinde .. Appasaheb Babu Shinde .. Respondent Respondent Respondent (Complainant) (Complainant) (Complainant) Mr.D.A.Patil, Mr.D.A.Patil, Mr.D.A.Patil, A.G.P.for Petitioner A.G.P.for Petitioner A.G.P.for Petitioner Mr.Umesh Mr.Umesh Mr.Umesh Mankapure for Respondent Mankapure for Respondent Mankapure for Respondent CORAM CORAM CORAM : Smt.Nishita Mhatre, J : Smt.Nishita Mhatre, J : Smt.Nishita Mhatre, J DATED DATED DATED : 9th October, 2007 : 9th October, 2007 : 9th October, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1.1.1. The petition challenges the order passed by the The petition challenges the order passed by the The petition challenges the order passed by the Industrial Industrial Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.76 of 2002. Court in Complaint (ULP) No.76 of 2002. Court in Complaint (ULP) No.76 of 2002. The The The respondent has filed this complaint under Item 9 respondent has filed this complaint under Item 9 respondent has filed this complaint under Item 9 of of of Schedule IV of M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P.Act Schedule IV of M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P.Act Schedule IV of M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P.Act contending contending contending that the petitioner had failed to that the petitioner had failed to that the petitioner had failed to implement implement implement the award of the Labour Court dated 16th the award of the Labour Court dated 16th the award of the Labour Court dated 16th January, January, January, 1995 in Reference (IDA) No.32 of 1991. The 1995 in Reference (IDA) No.32 of 1991. The 1995 in Reference (IDA) No.32 of 1991. The Industrial Industrial Industrial Court has concluded that the petitioner Court has concluded that the petitioner Court has concluded that the petitioner has has has committed unfair labour practice under Item 9 by committed unfair labour practice under Item 9 by committed unfair labour practice under Item 9 by not not not providing work to the respondent. It has been providing work to the respondent. It has been providing work to the respondent. It has been found found found that instead the petitioner had appointed that instead the petitioner had appointed that instead the petitioner had appointed contractors contractors contractors and had alloted work to the juniors of and had alloted work to the juniors of and had alloted work to the juniors of the the the respondent. In these circumstances, the respondent. In these circumstances, the respondent. In these circumstances, the Industrial Industrial Industrial Court Court Court in my view, has righly held that the in my view, has righly held that the in my view, has righly held that the petitioner petitioner petitioner has committed an unfair labour practice. has committed an unfair labour practice. has committed an unfair labour practice. There There There are no infirmities in the order of the are no infirmities in the order of the are no infirmities in the order of the Industrial Industrial Industrial Court warranting interference by this Court warranting interference by this Court warranting interference by this Court Court Court in its writ jurisdiction. in its writ jurisdiction. in its writ jurisdiction. 2.2.2. Petition rejected. Petition rejected. Petition rejected. (Smt (Smt (Smt Nishita Mhatre, J) Nishita Mhatre, J) Nishita Mhatre, J)