1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WRIT PETITION NO.1965 OF 2009 M/s.Ryal Logistics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners. Vs. Mr.Ramchandra S. Tatkare & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr.Vishal Talsania with Mr. Pranav Sampat i/b. Thakore Jariwala & Asso. for the Petitioners. Ms.Rita K. Joshi for Respondent No.1. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. November 30, 2009. P.C. Rule, by consent of Counsel and at their request, made returnable forthwith. 2. The First Respondent was a driver in the employment of Geeta Travels and Cargo, Mumbai, which was a partnership firm. The Second Petitioner, Rajkumar Agarwal and the Third and Fourth Respondents were partners of the firm. On 22nd July 1998, the Second Petitioner retired from the firm. A deed of retirement was entered into. The First Respondent had been terminated from service 2 on 2nd December 1996. The workman had sought a reference to adjudication which was made to the Labour Court. The First Party to the reference – the employer, consisted Geeta Travel and Cargo and its partners including the Second Petitioner. By an award dated 11th July 2007, the Labour Court held that the services of the workman were terminated illegally. The partnership firm was directed to reinstate the workman with full backwages and continuity of service. By Clause (iii) of the award, the Labour Court directed that the back wages payable from the date of termination - 2nd December 1996 until 22nd July 1998, would have to be paid by all the three partners whereas the back wages with effect from 23rd July 1998 until reinstatement would be paid by the Third Respondent herein, who had continued the business of the partnership. The order was not complied with. There was no challenge to the award. That led the workman to institute a complaint of an unfair labour practice under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. By an interim order dated 28th April 2009, the Industrial Court directed the Petitioner herein, and the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents who were impleaded to the new complaint to either reinstate the workman or to pay him his 3 wages and to deposit the back wages in accordance with the award dated 11th July 2007. 3. On behalf of the Petitioners, it has been submitted that the First Petitioner, which is a Company by the name of Royal Logistic Pvt Ltd., was not a party to the reference. It is urged that the award does not operate against the First Petitioner and consequently, the Industrial Court could not have passed an interim order in the Complaint of an unfair labour practice as against the First Petitioner. In so far as the Second Petitioner is concerned, it has been stated that since he has not challenged the award, the Second Petitioner is ready and willing to comply with Clause (iii) of the Award dated 11th July 2007 and to pay to the workman full back wages from 2nd December 1996 to 22nd July 1998 as directed by the Labour Court. -4. On behalf of the workman, it was submitted that the Third Respondent, who had taken over the business of the erstwhile partnership, stated that the First Petitioner had taken over the business as well as the employees. Hence, it was submitted that the 4 Industrial Court in the subsequent complaint of unfair labour practices was justified in passing an order against the First Petitioner. There is merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the Petitioners that ex-facie the award of the Labour Court dated 11th July 2007 does not operate against the First Petitioner. The First Petitioner was not a party to the reference at all. The workman was not an employee of the First Petitioner, but of the Partnership firm, by the name of Geeta Travels and Cargo. In these circumstances, there was no occasion for the Industrial Court in the subsequent complaint of an unfair labour practice to issue any direction as against the First Petitioner at the interim stage. -5. In so far as the Second Petitioner is concerned, as already noted above, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Second Petitioner has stated that his client would pay the entire quantum of back wages to the First Respondent between the period of 2nd December 1996 and 22nd July 1998 as directed by the Labour Court in its award dated 11th July 2007 and that the cheque shall be handed over in any event by tomorrow to the Advocate appearing on behalf of the First 5 Respondent against a valid receipt of discharge. The statement and assurance are accepted. Upon the issuance of the cheque for payment of back wages by the Second Petitioner to the First Respondent in the aforesaid terms, the direction contained in the interim order dated 28th April 2009 shall cease to apply to the Second Petitioner. The interim order of the Industrial Court, in so far as it contains a direction as against the First Petitioner, shall stand vacated. The First Petitioner will be at liberty to apply before the Industrial Court for being deleted from the array of parties to the Complaint of unfair labour practices. 6. The rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. ...