COURT RECEIVER HIGH COURT Vs. MUMBAI LABOUR UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court Receiver of this Court, who has been appointed in a Suit for dissolution of Respondent No.2-Partnership Firm, has filed the present Petition challenging the judgment and order dtd. 27/2/2007 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No.434/2004. The Industrial Court has allowed the complaint of unfair labour practice filed by Respondent No.1-Union directing payment of full wages to the concerned employees from January 2002 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The Industrial Court has also directed opening of factory by permitting the concerned workers to report for duties at the factory premises.

(2.) Brief facts leading to filing of the petition are stated thus: M/s. Ahmed Oomarbhoy was a partnership firm with Respondent Nos.3 to 6 as its partners. The firm was engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing cooking oil and other edible oils under a well-known brand 'Postman'. Respondent No.2 had its factory and office located at 170-Moulana Shoukat Ali Road, Mumbai-400 008 and branch offices at Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Kolkatta and New Delhi. According to the Respondent No.1-Union, the Firm had employed more than 500 employees including permanent factory employees, office staff, officers and contract workers. Respondent No.1 is a Union formed by the factory workers and was representing about 230 permanent workmen.

(3.) The dispute arose amongst partners of Respondent No.2-Partnership Firm. Respondent No.3 filed Suit No.4913/2000 in this Court for dissolution of the firm. By order dtd. 6/12/2000, this Court appointed Court Receiver in respect of the business and assets of the Partnership Firm. According to the First Respondent-Union, despite appointment of the Court Receiver, business of the Partnership Firm continued. Various orders were passed in the Suit from time to time. By order dtd. 30/7/2001, this Court directed selling of assets of the Partnership Firm through inviting bids since the Partnership Firm was to be dissolved. According to Respondent No.1-Union, the Factory was to be sold as an ongoing concern. By further order dtd. 2/8/2001, this Court directed Court Receiver to take physical possession of assets of the Firm which was taken by the Court Receiver on 3/9/2001. According to the Union, the Court Receiver directed all the workers to leave the factory premises while taking over possession of the factory on 3/9/2001. A representation dtd. 3/9/2001 was made by the Union representative to the Court Receiver. That the gates of the factory were kept locked from 4/9/2001 preventing the workers from entering therein.