1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Amk NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 614 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 796 OF 2006 Tulip Star Hotels & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Union of Centaur- Tulip Employees & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. J. P. Cama Sr. Counsel with Rajesh Mirchandani for the Petitioners. Ms. Jane Cox for Respondent No.1. Mr. Deokar i/b Parimal Shroff & Co. for Respondent Nos.4,6 & 7. CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date of reserving the order : 5th July, 2010. Date of pronouncing the order : 7th July, 2010. P.C. 1. The Respondents who are employees of the Petitioners have applied for payment of wages to them until the disposal of the complaint filed in ULP Court. The Writ Petition challenging the jurisdiction of the ULP Court has been considered. ULP Court is held to have jurisdiction to try the complaint. The complaint is held maintainable by the Respondents as the employees of the Petitioners. 2. The Respondents have been offered a VRS. From the 2 VRS amount wages for certain months have been paid and the balance is payable to the Respondents. Counsel on behalf of Respondents states that as of now amounts aggregating to salary for 29 months remains accumulated in the VRS amount. The Respondents have challenged the VRS. If their challenge is upheld, they would continue to be employees of the Petitioners. If their challenge is rejected, they would be entitled the amount payable under the VRS. Therefore, in either event no prejudice will be caused to the Petitioner by grant of the wages applied for by the Respondents. 3. The amount of wages claimed by the Respondents payable to them each month can be deducted from the amount under the VRS which is offered by the Petitioner to the Respondents. 4. The Petitioner contends that the Respondents do not report for duty. The Respondents contend that they were not allowed to enter. 5. The Petitioner contends that the wages are not required to be paid because the Petitioner has closed the hotel operations upon the entire staff having accepted and having been offered the settlement by VRS. The Petitioner only carries out certain other activities of allowing hotel premises to be let out for functions, banquets etc. The Petitioner must show closure of their undertaking or at least that unit. The Petitioner has relied upon notice dated 18.05.2006. The notice shows that the 3 management can close the hotel in Bombay by following due process of law and that the Petitioner is left with no alternative but to do that. The Petitioner has further relied upon a refund certificate dated 22.01.2009 issued by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation showing that water consumption is not used. The certificate issued to the Petitioner was required to be receipted by “the society”. It, therefore, does not clearly show that it related to the Petitioner company. The closure of the undertaking is, therefore, not shown by the Petitioner. Reliance upon judgments [M/s. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen (AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1002) and Managing Director, Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Ltd. (2008 I CLR 63)] that as soon as the closure of the undertaking is shown and the State Government has given permission for closure the relationship between the employer and employee ceases is misplaced and need not be considered. 6. The ULP Court held that the complaint of the Respondents was maintainable in that Court. The Petitioners challenged the maintainability. This Petition, therefore, came to be filed. The Petitioner has challenged the order of this Court and the Division Bench of this Court in the SLP filed by the Petitioner. The matter has been remanded to this Court to consider the maintainability. The maintainability has been considered. The Petitioner’s contention has so far been negatived. The complaint would now required to proceed before the ULP Court. Wages would be required to be paid by the Petitioner pending the adjudication of the complaint, which would have been disposed 4 off on merits, but for the challenge to its maintainability by the Petitioner. 7. Under these circumstances a case for grant of wages each month pending the adjudication of the dispute between the parties is made out. 8. The Petitioners shall pay the Respondents who have not accepted the VRS their wages each month pending the final adjudication of their dispute or until their VRS amount is exhausted, whichever is earlier. 9. The Notice of Motion is disposed of accordingly. ( ROSHAN DALVI, J.)