Case: S.P. Borkar and Others Vs. N.T.C.(S.M.) Limited and Others

On complaint made by the appellants each one of these cases under Section 28 read with items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, the Industrial Court examined the pleadings and evidence put in by both the parties and found that it would not be just and proper to thrust upon the Mill the appellants and therefore alternative remedy should be granted instead of reinstatement and, thereafter, made an order as follows :"Complaint is partly allowed.The respondent Mill is directed to calculate and pay on the principle of introducing Voluntary Retirement Scheme 40 days salary for each completed year to the complainant.It is further directed to pay 25% back wages towards compensation to the complainant from the date of filing the complaint till the date of order.The respondent Mill is further directed to pay gratuity to the complainant applicable as per law. If any amount was already paid to the complainant during the pendency of the complaint, it may be deducted from the aforesaid amount.The respondent company to comply with this order within one month from the date of this order.No order as to costs." * The appellants were aggrieved by this order and filed writ petitions before the High Court challenging the correctness of the same. The High Court is of the view that the order of this nature does not call for any interference as the same is based upon consent given by the parties for giving alternative relief instead of reinstatement. The High Court rejected the writ petitions. Hence these appeals by Special Leave.We have examined the records of the cases and are of the view that there was no agreement between parties in passing the order. However, it is clear that the Industrial Court had taken into consideration various suggestions made by the learned counsel appearing for either of the parties and came to the conclusion as stated above. In the circumstances, it would not be fit or proper on our part to interfere with the order made by the our Industrial Court as affirmed by the High Court. We decline to interfere with the same.

Decision reasoning: 0[ds]We have examined the records of the cases and are of the view that there was no agreement between parties in passing the order. However, it is clear that the Industrial Court had taken into consideration various suggestions made by the learned counsel appearing for either of the parties and came to the conclusion as stated above. In the circumstances, it would not be fit or proper on our part to interfere with the order made by the our Industrial Court as affirmed by the High Court. We decline to interfere with the same.