INDUSTRIAL WORKS UNION Vs. NEO PHARMA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

(2.) The petitioner challenges the Award dated 10th June, 1998 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, on a limited ground that though the Tribunal has correctly understood the principles of law, while considering the claim for revision of wages, it has ignored the anomaly in the wages received by the employees working at the head office in comparison with those received by the employees at the godown of the respondent-company and resulting monetary loss to the employees at the head office and without considering the same has rejected the reference and thereby has acted illegally and hence warrants interference in writ jurisdiction.

(3.) At the outset, the learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 has raised a preliminary objection for maintainability of the petition on the ground that consequent to the subsequent events in the matter, the petition has been rendered infructuous and, therefore, no purpose would be served by dealing with the points sought to be raised in the matter. It is the contention of the Respondent that the industry has been closed with effect from 13th September, 1999 after the service of statutory notice dated 13th July, 1999. Consequently, according to the learned Advocate for Respondent No.1-Company, the petition is to be rejected as infructuous. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner, on the other hand, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of the U.P. Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen & Ors., 1971 2 LLJ 528 , has submitted that the dispute in question relates to the period prior to closure of the industry and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner survives and the petition has not been rendered infructuous.