CLUTCH AUTO LIMITED Vs. RATILAL BHIMSINGH BARIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocates for the parties. 1. The petitioner who is opponent in complaint application No. 45/2010 in Reference (LCA -D) No. 41/2010, pending in the Labour Court No.7, Ahmedabad, has approached this Court under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the interim order passed by the Labour Court on 6/1/2011 below exhibit -2 stay application, where under the Labour Court has granted interim relief directing present petitioner/original opponent to give work to the workmen and pay them their monthly wages; and in alternative, if the petitioner/opponent chooses not to give them work, then pay them their wages till final disposal of the complaint exhibit -1. The complaint was fixed for hearing on 24/1/2011. Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with this order of interim relief passed by the Labour Court No.7, Ahmedabad, in complaint application No. 45/2010 in Reference (LCAD) No. 41/2010 the present petition is preferred wherein the workmen have also appeared through their Advocate on caveat.

(2.) The petitioner has put up a case that petitioner Company has one manufacturing unit at Faridabad and four manufacturing units at Ahmedabad. Petitioner Company had purchased unit of Gurukrupa Founders & Engineers which in fact is having four manufacturing units situated at (i) Kamal Industrial Estate, Sukram Nagar,Ahmedabad, known as 'Unit No.1'; (ii) Ajanta Industrial Estate, Behind Gujarat Bottling, Rakhial, Ahmedabad, known as 'Unit No.2'; (iii) Anupam Industrial Estate, Behind Nirala House, Amraiwadi, Ahmedabad, known as 'Unit No.3'; and (iv) Vatva Industrial Estate, Vatva, Ahmedabad, known as 'Unit No.4'. The unit was purchased with liability of the workmen 'as workmen of ongoing concern'. As per say of the Company, the Company introduced change in the manufacturing activities by introducing induction furnace requiring specially skilled workmen. The said change warranted transfer of the workmen working on rotary furnace in unit No. 4 to its other 3 units situated in Ahmedabad and this was sought to be effected by notice of order dated 27/2/2009. Accordingly workmen were required to work at different units w.e.f. 1/3/2009. The said transfer was differed in due deference to workmen's request and once again on 27/5/2010 said transfer was postponed and ultimately when transfer was sought to be effected on 8/10/2010 there was call of strike. Respondent and other 24 workmen filed complaint No. 45/2010 in reference being Reference (LCAD) No. 41/2010 inter alia contending and complaining that Company could not have changed their service condition during pendency of the dispute which was covered by reference as stated herein above. The complaint was replied by the Company which was a combined reply to the complaint as well as application for interim relief exhibit -2. The concerned Court after due deliberation on rival submissions came to the conclusion that there was prima facie violation of previsions of Section 33 of I.D. Act and hence decided to grant interim relief which in terms came to be granted which is impugned in the present petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned Advocate Shri D.G. Shukla appearing for the petitioner Company contended that the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction and authority to pass interim orders on complaint made under Section 33 -A of the I.D. Act. Learned Advocate for the Company submitted that the Labour Court could not have granted any interim relief without there being any adjudication of the complaint on question. The complaint, if any made under Section 33 -A of the I.D. Act, is held to be required to be adjudicated upon and there after only interim relief could be granted. In the instant case Labour Court has patently erred and over -stepped its jurisdiction in granting interim relief which is contrary to established principle of granting interim relief and therefore on that count also the order impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside. Learned Advocate for the petitioner Company further submitted that learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Ahmedabd Municipal Transport Service v. Hisamudin Dosumiya Shaikh, reported in 1997 (1) Glr 579 held that Section 33 -A of I.D. Act 1947 for grant of ex parte interim injunction is governed by same principles as laid down in Order 39 of Civil Procedure Code should be followed by the Industrial Courts. Industrial Courts or Labour Courts will also be governed by principles which are enumerated in provision of Order 39 Rules 1, 2 and 3 of Civil Procedure Code while granting interim relief under Section 33 -A of th I.D. Act. In the instant case the Court while granting interim relief has not confined itself to this principles enumerated under Order 39 and hence it can well be said that the Court has exercised jurisdiction which was not vested in it for granting interim relief and therefore the order impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside.