1 wp-5143-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO. 5143 OF 2009 Nashik District Co.Operative Bank Employees Union Nashik and Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. The Nashik Dist. Co.Op. Bank Ltd. and Anr. ..Respondents .... Mr.S.M.Dharap Adv. i/b Smt.Anjali Helekar Adv. for Petitioners Mr.B.V.Bhukhari Adv. for Respondent-Caveator. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : 24th JULY , 2009 P.C.: 1. Objection relating to the paging of the paper book, is waived. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner-Union and the learned counsel for the Respondent-Bank. 3. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 4. The petitioner gave a notice that they proposed to call a strike of workmen employed in the Undertaking of the Respondent No.1 from 1st June, 2009 for the reasons stated in the Annexure to the said Notice. 2 wp-5143-09 Respondent-Bank filed a complaint before the Industrial Court, Nasik being complaint ULP No.55 of 2009. The said complaint was filed under items Nos.1, 2(A), 2(B), 4 and 5 under Schedule III of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions Act and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (for short M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act). An application for interim relief came to be preferred by the Respondent- Bank and the same came to be granted by the Industrial Court on 3rd June, 2009. In the said order, it came to be declared that the strike as per the strike notice dated 12th May, 2009 was illegal and they were directed to withdraw the strike and resume the work within 48 hours. It is not disputed that the strike was withdrawn within 48 hours. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that the Industrial Court has granted application at Exh.C-2 for interim relief relying on the judgment in Vyapari Sahakari Bank Maryadit, Chatigalli, Solapur Vs. P.A.Ambure and Ors. Reported in III CLR Page 147. He submitted that facts therein and the facts in the present case are entirely different. In the said case, there was no Union and the other facts therein were also different and hence, the said decision would not apply to the facts of the present case. His second grievance is that the Industrial Court has stated in its order dated 3rd June, 2009 that “it is `declared ’ that the respondents, workers in the complainant-bank have commenced illegal strike as per strike notice dated 12th May, 2009 from 1st June, 3 wp-5143-09 2009, which amounts to unfair labour practice under Item-1 of Schedule III of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P.Act, 1971, and therefore the respondent no.1 and workers shall withdraw the strike within 48 hours from said declaration and resume their work ”. The petitioners are aggrieved by the word `declared ” by the Industrial Court and according to the learned counsel, the use of the word `declared ’ would mean that the issue was concluded and the Tribunal has held that the petitioners had indulged in illegal strike and thus, unfair labour practice. According to the learned counsel, this appears to be the final view of the Industrial Court. However, it is seen that the wording is used in the order passed in application for interim relief and the main matter i.e. the complaint is still pending before the Industrial Court. Obviously these words are not the final view of the Court but it only indicates a prima facie view of the Court used to dispose of the application for interim relief. Hence, even though, the word “declared ” has been used by the Tribunal, it would obviously not amount to the final view of the Court. 6. Looking to the fact that the main matter is pending before the Industrial Court, I am not inclined to interfere at this stage as I am of the opinion that it would be appropriate that all the contentions of the parties are left open to be agitated and adjudicated in the main matter. Thus, in my view, no interference is called for at this stage. The Industrial Court to decide and dispose of the main matter as expeditiously as possible. It 4 wp-5143-09 is made clear that all contentions of the parties, are left open. It is also open to petitioners to agitate before the Industrial Court that the decision in the case of Vyapari Sahakari Bank Maryadit (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. Rule and writ petition are disposed of accordingly. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]