Quashed

K.V. Ramaswami and Anr. v. Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi and Gumasta General Kamgar Sanghatna and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Feb 2009WP/176/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

File to quash a Labour Court order that stayed termination of services based on a complaint. The court held the complaint did not disclose contempt and the initial order was not a blanket stay, quashing the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 17.11.2008 is quashed and set aside. The complainant may file a fresh application with necessary details.

K.V. Ramaswami and Anr. Vs Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi and… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

 : 1 :

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.176 OF 2009

¶4

 K.V. Ramaswami .
 Whole-time Director .
 Larsen & Tourbo Ltd. ECC Division & Anr. ..Petitioners
 V/s.

¶5

 Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi & .
 Gumasta General Kamgar Sanghatna ..Respondent

¶6

 Mr.S.K. Talsania, Senior Counsel with Mr.Vijay
 H.Kantharia and Mr.Mahesh Londhe i/b M/s.Sanjay Udeshi
 & Co. for the Petitioners.

¶7

 Mr.H. Kumar Vaidyanatha for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.
DATED : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2009.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

 1. By an order 12.1.2009 the parties were put to
 notice that the matter may be disposed of finally at
 the admission stage.

¶11

 2. Rule. By consent the rule is made returnable

¶12

 forthwith and heard finally.

¶13

 3. The Petitioners have impugned an order dated
 17.11.2008 passed by the Labour Court which reads
 thus :-

¶14

Order :

¶15

 Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant.
 Perused the Complaint. There is prima facie

¶16

 : 2 :

¶17

 evidence on record to proceed against the
 accused u/s 48 r/w sections 38 & 41 of the
 MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 r/o 4.12.2008."

¶18

 . The order dated 30.9.2008 which is alleged to

¶19

 have been violated reads thus :-

¶20

 "ORDER BELOW EXH.C-2

¶21

 (30.9.2008)

¶22

 Heard both sides, accordingly to
 Mr.Kantharia, the concerned persons are
 strangers. Adjourned for Say and Hearing.
 If at all the concerned employees are
 employed with the Respondents, then till next
 date, their Services shall not be terminated,
 expect by due process of law".

¶23

 4. Admittedly the orders ceased to be in

¶24

 operation with effect from 23.1.2009. However the

¶25

 complaint wherein the impugned order was passed is
 dated 11.11.2008.

¶26

 5. It is pertinent to note that the complaint

¶27

 proceeded on the basis that the Petitioners were not
 to terminate the services of the complainant without
 following due process of law and to maintain

¶28

 status-quo.

¶29

 6. The Complainant’s advocate by a letter dated

¶30

 2.10.2008 stated :-

¶31

 "I would like to inform you that the hon’ble
 industrial court has passed the order in the
 aforesaid complaint filed by the union and
 the hon’ble court has directed you to not to

¶32

 : 3 :

¶33

 terminate the services of the workmen whose
 names are mentioned in annexure-A of the
 complaint without following due process of
 law.

¶34

 You are therefore informed to comply with the
 order passed by the hon’ble industrial court
 and to provide the work to the workmen who
 are working at Penkarpada near Dahisar
 Checknaka, Mira Road (East), Thane, failing
 in which my client shall have no option but
 to initiate a criminal proceedings against
 you for the breach of order."

¶35

 By a letter dated 17.10.2008 addressed by the

¶36

 advocate of the complainant also proceeded on the
 basis that there was a blanket stay not to terminate
 the services of the workers whose names are mentioned
 in the complaint. Paragraph 2 of the letter reads
 thus :-

¶37

 "2. I submit that the Hon’ble Industrial
 Court has directed to your company to
 maintain the status-quo with regard to the
 employment of the workmen and not to
 terminate the service of the workmen, whose
 names are mentioned in the main complaint".

¶38

 7. The order dated 30.9.2008 does not contain

¶39

 any such blanket direction. It specifically states
 that " If at all the concerned employees are employed
with the Respondents thentill the next date their
 services shall not be terminated except by due process
 of law". Thus if the persons are not employed by the
 Respondents company there is no question of the order
 operating against it.

¶40

 : 4 :

¶41

 8. The impugned order states that what is
 perused is the complaint. A perusal of the entire
 complaint establishes clearly that the same was based
 on the stand taken in the complainant’s advocates said
 letter.

¶42

 9. Further apart from a bare averment, nowhere
 in the complaint is there anything to suggest that the
 complainant is a permanent employee of the company.
 The complaint as filed discloses no offence/contempt
 of the order dated 30.9.2008.

¶43

 10. The learned counsel for the Respondent

¶44

 submitted that there is absolute and a total bar to
 the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the
 Constitution of India in view of Section 482 of the
 Criminal Procedure Code. He submitted that it is not
 merely a matter of discretion but a question of
 jurisdiction. A High Court is barred from exercising
 power under Article 226, moment it is found that a
 remedy under Section 482 is available. He has even
 after seeking and obtaining time not invited my
 attention to any judgment in his favour. I am unable
 to accept the submission.

¶45

 11. In the circumstances, the impugned order is
 quashed and set-aside. This order will not prevent

¶46

 : 5 :

¶47

 the complainant from taking out any fresh application
 after furnishing necessary details.

K.V. Ramaswami and Anr. v. Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi and Gumasta General Kamgar Sanghatna and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.V. Ramaswami and Anr. v. Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi and Gumasta General Kamgar Sanghatna and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Leonie D'Silva Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S. Chemiequip Ltd. (in Liqn.)

Uco Bank Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S. Glass Carboys and Presedwares Ltd. (in Liqn.).

Babu Fakirappa Naikar Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S. W.G. Forge (in Liqn.)

Murlidhar Khatri Vs Lotherme Electrodes (I) Pvt. Ltd.

LIC Housing Finance Ltd. Vs M/S.Swagat Land Developers Pvt.Ltd.

Stonewood Cem-Fab (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs ------------------------------------------