Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1383 of 2008 Balasaheb Vishwanath Kshirsagar & ors. ..Petitioners V/s. The Ballarpur Industries Limited ..Respondents Mr.S.M.Oak for the Petitioners Mr.K.S.Bapat iby M/s. Desai & Desai for Respondent No.1 Mr.Nitin Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.2 CORAM CORAM CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATED DATED DATED : 7th March, 2008 : 7th March, 2008 : 7th March, 2008 P.C. Heard Mr. Oak, the learned counsel for the Petitioners who are the employees of Respondent No.1 Company. They approached the Industrial Court at Pune and filed Complaint(ULP)No. 262/2007 under Item Nos. 5 & 9 of Schedule IV read with Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 against the present Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and in the said complaint an application for interim-relief under Section 30(2) of the Act was filed on or about 20-12-2007. The prayers in the complaint as well as in the application for interim-relief are virtually the same. The Petitioners sought a restraining order against the Respondent No.1 Company not to negotiate and enter into a settlement with the office bearers of the Respondent No.2 union and by the 2 impugned order dated 31st January 2008 the said prayer has been turned down. 2. There is no dispute that the Respondent No.2 is the recognised union under the Act. The allegations made by the Complainants are that the present office bearers had not taken any steps to elect a new body on expiry of the term of the present body on 28-10-2006 and unless the new body is elected, the union cannot exercise its right to negotiate with the Respondent No.1 company. The existing settlement signed on 22-7-2005 has expired on 30-9-2007 and the negotiations are in progress for signing a new settlement. 3. The Company as well as the recognised union filed written-statement as well as reply and opposed the complaint and the application for interim-relief. The union in its reply has specifically pointed out that the election to elect a new body was held on 26-5-2006 and eleven office bearers have been elected for a period of 3 years i.e. 2006 to 2009. It was further submitted that on 29-5-2006 the names of the newly elected office bearers were also communicated to the additional Labour Commissioner, Pune and a copy of said letter is annexed to the petition memo as Exh. E. Mr. Oak, the learned counsel for the Petitioners referred to the composite written-statement filed by the company and pointed out 3 that the company has shown ignorance about the new body having been elected. 4. The Industrial Court was required to consider a prima-facie case of unfair labour practice on the part of the company and not on the part of the Respondent No.2 union. The status of the said union as a recognised union is not disputed and, therefore, the Industrial Court was right in holding that there was no case of unfair labour practice made out even prima-facie against the said company by continuing the negotiations so as to sign a new settlement, more so, when the union specifically came up with the case that elections were held for electing body of 11 members and the names of these elected representatives were sent in writing to the Additional Labour Commissioner at Pune. 5. Hence, no interference is called for in the impugned order, under the supervisory powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Petition is rejected. [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]