MODI XEROX LTD Vs. NILOO MAKHIJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Perused the records.

(2.) The Petitioners seek to challenge the complaint filed by the Respondent No. 1 being Misc. Criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 18 of 1999 along with the process issued by the labour Court under Order dated 15-03-1999 and confirmed by the Industrial Court by Order dated 16-11-1999. The grievance of the petitioners is that the complaint does not disclose the offence so as to enable the Labour court to take cognizance thereof under Section 48 of MRTU and PULP Act, 1971.

(3.) Few facts which are relevant for the decision in the matter are that the respondent No. 1 was transferred by Order dated 16-03-1998 from her initial posting at andheri to the office of the Petitioners at vashi. The same was sought to be challenged by way of Complaint No. 319 of 1998, which was allowed by the Industrial Court and the transfer Order was quashed by its Order dated 16-12-1998 and the Petitioners Company was directed to allow the Respondent No. 1 to work at Andheri on her usual allowance and status and was also directed to pay cost of Rs. 1,000/ -. The Order of Industrial Court was sought to be challenged by way of Writ Petition being writ Petition No. 141 of 1999, which came to be admitted on 15-01-1999, however. no interim relief was granted. Consequently the order passed by the Industrial Court on 16- 12-1998 continued to be enforceable. By order dated 15-01-1999 issued by the petitioner Company the Respondent No. 1 was directed to report to her duties at Andheri. The respondent No. 1 accordingly reported to her duties with effect from 18-01-1999. The original posting of the Respondent No. 1 was as a Customer Relation Co-ordinator and she was sought to be transferred against the said post at Andheri. By advocate's notice dated 05-02-1999 it was informed to the Petitioner company that she had not been granted her original status as she was not paid with the allowances and she was not being allowed to do any woik in the capacity as the Customer relation Co-ordinator. The allegations in that regard were denied by the Petitioner Company by their letter dated 15-02-1999. The respondent No. 1 consequently filed a criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 18 of 1999 against the Petitioner Company and in that she complained that though she had been allowed to report to the office at Andheri, she was not being given the earlier status nor she was being allowed to do any work and she was being made to sit idle for most of the time. She also complained of having not received the amount of cost of Rs. 1,000/ -. Verification of the complaint was made on 24-02-1999 and process came to be issued pursuant to the order dated 15-03-1999 fixing the hearing of the Complaint on 04-05-1999. Meanwhile the petitioner Company filed Misc. Criminal revision Application (ULP) No. 2 of 1999 challenging the said process issued against the petitioners in the said Complaint. By interim order dated 03-05-1999 the process issued against the Petitioners was stayed, however, after hearing the parties the Misc. Cri. Revision application was dismissed by the Industrial court by its Order dated 16-11-1999. Hence, the present Petition.