1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8150 OF 2009 Precihole Kamgar Sangthana and Ors .. Petitioner Vs M/s. Precihole Machine Tools Pvt Ltd .. Respondent Mr. A.A. Joshi for the petitioner M.V. Joglekar & Mr. Rahul D. Oak for the respondent CORAM : Smt. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : 24th September, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned advocate for the respondent company. 2. Petitioner no. 1 is a union and petition no. 2 is the president of the union and petitioner nos. 3 to 9 are employees of the respondent company. Petitioner nos. 3 to 9 became the members of petitioner no. 1 union. After the earlier settlement expired, they submitted a fresh charter of demand. It is their case that the respondent company deliberately avoided to negotiate with the union in RMA wp8150-09.sxw 2 respect of said charter of demand. Hence, the union was left no alternative than to commence strike. Thus, after giving notice as is necessary under the Act, the strike commenced from 10th August, 2009. 3. The respondent company filed a complaint (ULP) No. 189 of 2008 before the Industrial Court at Thane under items 1, 2(a), 2(b), 5 and 6 of Schedule III of MRTU and PULP Act. Along with the said complaint, the respondent company also filed an application for interim relief below Ex. C-2 praying that the members of the petitioner union be restrained from engaging in unfair labour practices as alleged in the complaint. The Industrial Court by order dated 29th August, 2009 allowed the application by passing the following order: "The respondents are hereby restrained from causing any obstruction to the non striking workmen, staff as well as the managerial staff who are reporting for their duties. They are prevented from causing any hindrance to the customers, visitors and the ingress and egress of the semi finished and finished goods as well as the vehicles coming in and going out of the factory premises." RMA wp8150-09.sxw 3 4. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that as far as the first para is concerned, they have no grievance. However, the directions in respect of 'semi finished goods' in the second para ought not to have been granted as it would affect the workers. Thus, being aggrieved by the directions relating to "semi finished goods", this petition has been preferred. 5. The Industrial Court has considered all aspects carefully and thereafter it has passed the order. Moreover, it is seen as far as semi finished goods are concerned, the company caters to the needs of defence services and supplies finished products to Ordinance Factories situated at Jabalpur, Trichi etc. The products of the company are utilized by BARC, BHEL, MTRSC etc. It is seen that the said range of customers not only show the extent of products manufactured / utilized but also that the products are of national importance. For certain activities the semi finished products are required to be shifted for carrying out further process / activities by vendors. In this view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. The petition is dismissed. 6. The Industrial Court to decide the complaint without being RMA wp8150-09.sxw 4 influenced by any observations in this order. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) RMA wp8150-09.sxw