Allowed

Killick and Allied Companies Employees Union and Ors. v. Killick Nixon Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC31 Aug 2009APP/292/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against a blanket stay of an Industrial Court order directing payment of legal dues. The court directed the employer to deposit the dues within eight weeks to secure employees' interests pending the final hearing.

What did the court decide?

Strike down the blanket stay; direct the employer to deposit legal dues within eight weeks and submit calculations.

Killick and Allied Companies Employees Union… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

APPEAL NO.292 OF 2009

¶5

IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 668 OF 2009

¶7

Killick & Allied Companies
Employee�s Union & ors.
v/s.

¶8

...Appellants

¶9

Killick Nixon Ltd. & Ors....Respondents

¶10

Mr.N.M.Ganguli for the Appellants.

¶11

Mr.A.M.NathaniwithMr.Y.J.Singhfor
Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.

¶12

CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, &

¶13

 R.G.KETKAR, JJ
DATED: 31th August, 2009

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

Admit. Heard finally by consent of parties.

¶16

2.Two writ petitions were filed in the

¶17

High Court before the learned single Judge

¶18

¶19

challenging the same order passed by the

¶20

Industrial Court. The order is dated
16-1-2009.PresentAppellantswere

¶21

Petitioners in Writ Petition No.668 of 2009

¶22

and the Respondent-employer was Petitioner in

¶23

Writ Petition No.933 of 2009. By order dated

¶24

8th May, 2009, the learned single Judge
admitted both the petitions for final hearing
and has granted interim relief. The present

¶25

appeal is filed by the Union, which was
Petitioner in Writ Petition No.668 of 2009
challenging the part of the interim order
passed by the learned single Judge. The
operative part of the order of the Industrial
Court dated 16-1-2009, which is impugned in
the above referred two writ petitions reads
as under:

¶26

¶27

2006, 363 of 2006, 306 of 2007 and
320 of 2007 are hereby disposed of
with direction to the respondent to

¶28

pay all the legal dues including
retrenchment compensation, gratuity
and other legal dues to which the
employees involved in all the four
complaints are entitled till the
dated of this order, within 90 days
from the date of receipt of this
order.

¶29

2.The employees involved in
all these four complaints are at
liberty to approach the appropriate
forum for claiming wages for the lay
off period.

¶30

3.Parties to bear their own

¶31

costs.

¶32

¶33

3.The interim order passed by the

¶34

learned single Judge in so far it is relevant
for our purpose is contained in paragraph 3
of the order dated 8th May, 2009. It reads as
under:

¶35

�3.In so far as interim
relied is concerned, the operative
order passed by the Industrial Court
directing the Management to pay all
the legal dues including retrenchment
compensation, gratuity and other
legal dues to the employees involved
in the four complaints as it they
were in service on the date of the
order, is stayed. This interim
relied, however, shall not preclude
the concerned employees to apply
before appropriate forum for grant of
lay-off allowance, if so advised.

¶36

¶37

That proceedings will have to be

¶38

decided on its own merits in
accordance with law.�

¶39

4.By the interim order the learned

¶40

single Judge has granted blanket stay to the
order of the Industrial Court in relation to

¶41

payment of legal dues. In our opinion, it is

¶42

obvious that as the learned single Judge
admitted both the petitions for final

¶43

hearing, according to the learned single
Judge both the Union as well as the Employer

¶44

made out a prima facie case against the
impugned order. But that, in our opinion, was
not enough for the learned single Judge to

¶45

grant blanket interim relief totally
absolving the employer even from depositing

¶46

the amount that he was directed to pay to

¶47

the employees. In our opinion, it was
necessary for the learned single Judge while

¶48

¶49

granting stay of the order impugned in the
petitions to secure the amount which is
directed to be paid by the impugned order, so
that the Union would be able to recover the
amount in the event the petition of the
employer fails. At the time of making interim
order the court should make an endeavour to
protect the interest of both sides involved.
Because interim order is made on the basis of
prima facie view, which view may be changed
at the final hearing.

¶50

5.Taking overall view of the matter,

¶51

therefore, in our opinion, following order
would meet the ends of justice.

¶52

O R D E R

¶53

(i)The interim order granted by the learned
single Judge dated 8th May, 2009 passed in

¶54

¶55

Writ Petition No.668 of 2009 and Writ

¶56

Petition No.993 of 2009 shall operate

¶57

subject to the conditions that within a
period of eight weeks from today the
Employer, who is Petitioner in Writ
Petition No.933 of 2009, shall deposit

¶58

the amount which he has been directed to
pay by Clause 1 of the operative part of
the order impugned in the Writ Petitions
in this court.

¶59

(ii) The employer while depositing the
amount shall give due intimation of the
same to the Union, which is Petitioner in
Writ Petition No.668 of 2009.

¶60

(iii) The employer while depositing the

¶61

amount shall also submit the calculations

¶62

on the basis of which the amount is
arrived at by the employer.

¶63

(iv) If the Union has any grievance about
the quantum of the amount, the Union

¶64

¶65

shall be entitled to lodge its objection

¶66

and in such event the objection shall be
placed before the learned single Judge
for appropriate order.

¶67

(v) If the amount is not deposited within

¶68

the aforesaid period of eight weeks, the

¶69

the order passed by the learned single
Judge shall stand vacated without any
further reference to the court.

¶70

(vi) In case the amount is deposited as
aforesaid, the Union shall be at liberty
to apply to the learned single Judge for
appropriate order.

Killick and Allied Companies Employees Union and Ors. v. Killick Nixon Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Killick and Allied Companies Employees Union and Ors. v. Killick Nixon Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Godrej and Boyce Mfg.Co.Ltd and Anr. Vs Mun.Corpn.of Greater Bombay and Ors.

M/S. Global Marketing and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shobha L.Vaidya Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

G.B.Ganachari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Transport and Dock Workers Union and Ors. Vs the Board of Trustees Bombay Port Trust

Standard Chartered Bank and 3 Ors. Vs Union of India and 5 Ors.