1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WRIT PETITION NO.2088 OF 2009 The Associated Cement Staff Union ..Petitioner. Vs. ACC Limited and another ..Respondents. ..... Mr. P.M. Patel for the Petitioner. Mr. B.G. Goyal with Ms Neha Mehta, Ms Renuka Lele i/b Haresh Mehta & Co. for the Respondents. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 24th November, 2009. P.C. : 1. The application for interim relief before the Industrial Court arose in a complaint of unfair labour practices which complained of a modification in the facility granted by the employer for the reimbursement of medical benefits to former employees. Prior to the modification the workmen were being granted reimbursement of the expenses incurred on medicines on the basis of actuals. Similarly, reimbursement was also allowed of consultation charges. After the modification a ceiling of Rs.5,000/- per year has been introduced on 2 the reimbursement of medicines while free consultation is provided for at the head office. The Industrial Court held that the grant of interim relief would amount to the grant of final relief in the complaint. Consequently, the interim relief that was sought was not granted. 2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the reasons which have been set out in the order of the Industrial Court would virtually amount to the denial of interim relief in every case where the relief of a monetary nature is sought. The relief that has been sought is capable of quantification in monetary terms. The management has contended that the earlier scheme was modified both in respect of existing and past employees with a view to avoid the abuse of the facility. Whether the management was justified in law in doing so is undoubtedly a matter which will be decided at the trial of the complaint on merits. At this stage, the Industrial Court took a possible view in holding that it would not be appropriate to grant the relief at this stage since that would amount to a grant of 3 final relief in the complaint. The interference of this Court would in the circumstances be not warranted particularly since the workmen are capable of being restituted in monetary terms upon the final disposal of the complaint, should the Industrial Court hold in their favour. However, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it would be in the interests of justice to expedite the disposal of the complaint. Counsel appearing on behalf of the management has stated that the affidavit which has already been filed in reply to the application for interim relief is being adopted as a written statement. The Industrial Court is requested to endeavour an expeditious disposal of the complaint preferably by 31st July, 2010. In these circumstances, no interference with the interim order is warranted. The Petition is disposed of. ****