1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 905 OF 2010 Shri Suhas Vilas Patil ... Petitioner v/s Kumbhi Kasari Sah. Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Kuditre, Tal. Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur. Through its Managing Director. ... Respondent Mr.P.D.Dalvi for the petitioner. Mr.K.S.Bapat i/by M/s.Desai & Desai Associates for the respondent. ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3957 OF 2010 Kumbhi Kasari Sah. Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Kuditre, Tal. Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur. Through its Managing Director. ... Petitioner v/s Shri Suhas Vilas Patil ... Respondent Mr.K.S.Bapat i/by M/s.Desai & Desai Associates for the petitioner. Mr.P.D.Dalvi for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 23RD JUNE, 2010 2 P.C.: 1. Both these petitions challenge the order of the Industrial Court which has been passed on 10.7.2009. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to as they appear in Writ Petition No.3957 of 2010. 2. By the impugned order the Industrial Court has directed parties to maintain status-quo. It has further remanded the complaint to the Labour Court for deciding the issue as to whether the respondent in Writ Petition No.3957 of 2010 is an “employee” falling within the purview of Section 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act (in short, “B.I.R. Act”). The complaint has been expedited and the Labour Court has been directed to dispose of the complaint within three months. The Industrial Court has further directed that the subsistence allowance should not be paid to the workman. 2. In my view, the Industrial Court has erred in directing parties to maintain status-quo and also in further stopping the payment of the subsistence allowance to which the respondent is entitled. 3. Undisputedly, the employer is governed by the 3 provisions of the B.I.R. Act. Therefore, unless the respondent falls within the meaning of an “employee” as defined under Section 3(13) of the B.I.R. Act, the complaint itself would not be maintainable. In the statement of claim, the respondent has pleaded that his pay is about Rs.8,000/-. Therefore, it was necessary for the Industrial Court to consider this aspect before directing parties to maintain the status-quo. Admittedly, the enquiry has been completed and a notice has already been issued to the respondent to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated on the ground of misconduct which had been proved before the enquiry officer. That show cause notice has been replied by the respondent. 4. In these circumstances, in my view, the Industrial Court ought not to have granted an order of status-quo without there being anything on record to show that the enquiry, even prima facie, was not conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice and fair play. 5. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of. 6. The workman will be entitled to the subsistence allowance or ex-gratia as the employer calls the amount till his services are terminated. 7. The order of the Industrial Court is set aside. 4 5