GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE SOCEITY Vs. WORKMEN REPRESENTED BY GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE SOCIETY KARMACHARI UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated February 22, 2012 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, below Exh. 13 in Reference (IT) No. 180 of 2011. By the said order, the Tribunal has granted interim relief of wage-rise of Rs.500/- a month to all the workmen and annual increment in wages at the rate of Rs.100/- for each completed year of service. The Tribunal further directed that the arrears should be paid with effect from 1st November 2011. The Tribunal also granted interim relief to extend leave benefits as per the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act and for making payment of wages in accordance with Payment of Wages Act, 1936, to issue pay-slips.

(2.) BEING dissatisfied, the petitioner has come up with the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) MR . Patel, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has attacked the interim relief by contending that while passing such interim relief, the Tribunal below has failed to consider the total income of the petitioner. According to Mr. Patel, if the directions by way of interim relief granted by the Tribunal is implemented, it will exceed the total income of the petitioner, and thus, in passing such interim relief, the Tribunal below failed to follow the well-accepted principles which are required to be followed in granting this type of interim relief. Mr. Patel points out that the Tribunal itself has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner earned a profit of Rs.75,50,037-00 in the year 2008-2009, Rs.1,59,58,041 in the year 2009-2010 and Rs.2,28,15,724-00 in the year 2010-2011. Mr. Patel points out that having regard to the fact that for implementation of the interim order, the petitioner will become a losing concern, the Tribunal should not have passed such an interim order. In support of his contention, Mr. Patel relies upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court: 1. Workmen, G.E. Board v. G.E. Board reported in AIR 1970 SC 87. 2. State of Assam v, Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha reported in (2009) 5 SCC 694. 3. A.K. Bindal v. Union of India reported in (2003) 5 SCC 163. 4. Officers and Supervisors of IDPL vs. Chairman and MD, IDPL reported in (2003) 6 SCC 490