IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4099 OF 2009 Sadanand Baburao Dalvi ...Petitioner Vs. M/s. Godrej & Boyce Mrg. Co. Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents --- Shri Ravindran Nair with Shri Rahul D. Oak for Petitioner Shri J.P. Cama, Senior Counsel along with Shri Bharat Goel and Ms. Nehu Mehta i/b. M/s. Haresh Mehta & Co. for Respondent nos.1 to 3 ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 4TH MAY, 2009 P.C. 1. The Petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 6.6.2008 passed by the Labour Court, who was pleased to reject the interim application filed by the Petitioner herein and also the order dated 24.2.2009 passed by the Industrial Court, rejecting the revision application filed by the Petitioner herein and confirming the order of the Labour Court. 2. Brief facts in nutshell are as under: The Petitioner was appointed by the Respondent Company in the year 1991. A chargesheet was filed against him on 2.10.1999 alleging that he was not giving normal minimum production in its department for quite some time. A departmental enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer held that the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved by the management. The Petitioner apprehending dismissal, filed a complaint before the Labour Court at Thane vide Complaint (ULP) No. 31 of 2004. The Labour Court passed an interim order in the said complaint, restraining the Respondents from terminating the services of the Petitioner. The Respondents filed a revision application in the Industrial Court which was allowed and interim order passed by the Labour Court was vacated. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner filed a petition in this Court being Writ petition No. 4790 of 2007. That petition was disposed of, however, this Court has held that if the Respondents decided to terminate the services of the Petitioner, the said order was not to be acted upon for a period of 15 days. Thereafter, the Respondents issued an order of dismissal. The Petitioner, therefore, withdrew the Complaint (ULP) No. 37 of 2004 and filed a fresh complaint vide Complaint (ULP) No.110 of 2007. An application was made in the said complaint for interim protection. The Labour Court, however, rejected the said application by its order dated 6.6.2008. The Petitioner preferred a revision application before the Industrial Court being Revision Application (ULP) No.43 of 2008. However, the said revision application was also dismissed. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has not committed any act of moral turpitude or not acted dishonestly and the only allegation which was levelled against him was reduction weight of production. He submitted that, therefore, the Labour Court ought to have protected the services of the Petitioner herein. He submitted that the Labour Court has the jurisdiction to grant interim relief directing the Respondents to reinstate him in the services during the pendency of the complaint. He relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. Ashok Vishnu Kate & Ors. reported in 1995 II CLR 823 and also a judgment of this Court in the case of Reliance Energy Limited, Mumbai vs. Rashtrawadi Kamgar Sangh and Ors. reported in 2009 I CLR 771. 5. Shri J.P. Cama, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the Labour Court had held that the enquiry was fair and legal and that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not perverse, and, therefore, had not passed an order for interim relief in favour of the Petitioner. He submitted that both the Courts below after going through the material, which was available on record had given a concurrent finding that the enquiry which was held was fair, legal and proper and that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer was not perverse. He submitted that, therefore, under these circumstances, the question of granting interim relief in favour of the Petitioner does not arise. He relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Kamgar Sanghatana, Pune Division, report in 1999 II CLR 590 and also a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sadanand Patankar vs. M/s. New Prabhat Mills No.2, Bombay and another reported in 1975 LAB. I.C. 457. 6. In my view, there cannot be a dispute about the ratio of the judgments laid down in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. (supra) and Reliance Energy Limited, Mumbai (supra). In the present case, admittedly, both the Courts below recorded a finding that no prima facie case has been made out by the Petitioner after going through the material which was on record. Both the Courts below have held that the enquiry which was held was fair, legal and proper and the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer are not perverse. That being the position, the question of granting stay to the order of termination or granting reinstatement during the pendency of the complaint does not arise. The ratio of the judgment in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In paragraph 3 of the said judgment, the Learned Single Judge Brother Shri D.K. Deshmukh J has observed as under: “3. I have heard the learned Counsel for both sides. I find that the power of the Industrial Court of granting interim relief is contained in sub-sec.2 of Sec.30 A power of any court to grant interim relief is always to be exercised in aid of the final relief that is claimed in the complaint. For the purpose the court has to first find out whether, prima facie case has been made out by the complainant. The Court for that purpose held an inquiry and had reached prima facie conclusion that there is no unfair labour practice on the part of the employer/ Petitioner. Once the Court reaches that finding, in my opinion, the Court looses the power to grant any interim relief in such case. The order impugned, therefore, in my opinion is liable to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.” The ratio laid down by the Learned Single Judge squarely applies to the facts of the present case. 7. In the circumstances, no case made out for interfering with the order passed by both the Courts below. Writ Petition, accordingly, is dismissed in lemini. 8. At this stage, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner prays for continuation of the interim order which was granted by the Industrial Court and which was continued by this Court pending admission of the writ petition. This submission is vehemently opposed by Shri Cama, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 9. In the present case, since a Learned Single Judge of this Court Smt. Nishita Mhatre J. in Writ Petition no.4790 of 2007 had directed the Respondents not to act on that order passed against the Petitioner for a period of 15 days and since the said order was continued by the Labour court and by the Industrial Court, in my view, it would be appropriate if the said order is continued for the period of 15 days. 10. Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. V.M. KANADE J.