CHHOTALAL LALJIBHAI CHANDSARA Vs. LUBI ELECTRICALS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against summary dismissal of Special Civil Application No. 5477 of 199 8/04/1999.

(2.) The respondents herein employed several workmen. It was the case of the employees that they have not been paid even minimum wages by the employer. A large majority of workmen, therefore, became members of Gujarat Majdoor Sabha ('union' for short) in the year 1998 and demanded payment of minimum wages. It was the allegation of the employees that with a view to break the union, the employer resorted to illegal lock out. About 200 workmen became jobless. The management also suspended about 40 workmen by issuing show cause notices and/or charge sheets. It was the assertion of the workmen that the alleged acts did not amount to misconduct under the Model Standing Orders. They, therefore, moved I.E.S.O. Application before the Labour court under Section 13A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and requested the court to grant status-quo order during the pendency of the proceedings. The said prayer was, however, rejected by the Labour Court inter alia on the ground that the Labour court had no jurisdiction to grant interim relief. The Labour Court also observed that even on merits, it was not a fit case to grant interim relief.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant union approached this court by filing the above petition. The learned Single Judge relying upon the decision of a Single Judge of this court in Tata Chemicals Ltd. and others v. K.C. Adhvaryu, (1964) 5, GLR 649 and followed by a Division Bench in Amini Jonh v. Barofarn Chemicals Ltd., (1993) 1 L.L.N, 104, held that the point was concluded by the above two pronouncements of this Court and that by refusing interim relief to the workmen, the Labour Court had not committed any error of law. In the opinion of the learned Single Judge, powers under Section 13-A of the Act were declaratory in nature and no interim relief could be granted under the said provision. In view of the above finding, the learned Single Judge summarily dismissed the petition and also vacated ad-interim relief granted earlier. We have heard Mr. Mukul Sinha for the appellant and Mr.P.M.Thakkar, Senior Advocate for Thakkar Associates (on caveat) for the respondents.