ZODIAC CLOTHING COMPANY LIMITED Vs. JANTA KAMGAR UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated September 19, 2002 passed by the Industrial Court in Reference (IT)No. 26 of 1993 by which the preliminary issue, "whether there is a bar of Section 59 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 to this reference proceedings?" has been answered in the negative.

(2.) THE reference between the petitioner-company and respondent No. 1 was referred by the Government of Maharashtra for adjudication of the issue of the issue of reinstatement of 11 workmen with effect from 1/06/1992. It appears that during the pendency of the reference, respondent no. 2-union was allowed to represent the concerned 11 workmen (for short "the said workmen" ). I need not go into the reasons why respondent No. 1 withdrew and respondent no. 2 was allowed to represent the said. workmen. In the reference, the petitioner-company filed application being Exhibit "c-16" on 5/10/1999 and prayed for framing of the aforeslated preliminary issue regarding the legality, validity and maintainability of the reference. The said application Exhibit "c-16" was allowed by the industrial Tribunal by its order dated 18/08/2000 with the directions to the parties to lead evidence on the preliminary issue. Accordingly, the evidence was recorded and the arguments were heard on the preliminary issue by the industrial Tribunal, which by its order dated september 18, 2002 rejected the preliminary objection holding that the reference is not barred by Section 59 of the MRTU and PULP Act. The said order passed by the Industrial Tribunal is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) EXHIBIT "c-16" application was filed by the petitioner-company contending that the reference is not legal, valid and maintainable in view of the fact that the respondent-union had earlier filed a complaint being Complaint (ULP) No. 789 of 1992 (for short "the complaint") on behalf of the said workmen. The subject matter and the cause of action in the reference and in the aforesaid complaint was one and the same and in view thereof the bar under Section 59 of the MRTU and PULP act, 1971 would certainly apply.