ROWENA LEWIS Vs. CIMMCO BIRLA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - 1. The Petitioner was appointed as a Secretary -cum -Stenographer by the Respondent on 1st September, 1976. Her services were terminated on 30th December, 1987. The Petitioner instituted a complaint of unfair labour practices being complaint (ULP) 339 of 1987 under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 before the Labour Court in order to challenge the termination. On 25th March, 1996 the Labour Court allowed the complaint and passed an order of reinstatement with backwages. The revision application of the employer (Revision Application 72 of 1996) was dismissed by the Industrial Court. Thereupon the Petitioner filed another complaint being complaint (ULP) 588 of 1996 under Item 9 of Schedule IV for implementation of the order of the Labour Court as confirmed by the Industrial Court. On 5th November, 1996 an interim order was passed by the Industrial Court directing the employer to deposit the wages that were in arrears within a period of one month.

(2.) THE employer filed two writ petitions before this Court viz. Writ Petition 6060 of 1996 and 6064 of 1996. The writ petitions sought to impugn the order passed by the Labour Court in complaint (ULP) 339 of 1987 and the interim order of the Industrial Court dated 5th November, 1996 in complaint (ULP) 588 of 1996. Both the writ petitions were admitted by a Learned Single Judge of this Court on 12th December, 1996. The order of the Labour Court in complaint (ULP) 339 of 1987 as confirmed in revision was stayed subject to the following conditions : "(i) the petitioner pays Respondent No.1 the wages last drawn by her at the time of her retrenchment every month from the month of December 1996, first such payment shall be made on or before 7th January, 1997, and on 7th of every subsequent month; (ii) the petitioner deposits before this Court the entire backwages payable under the impugned orders within one month from today. Upon such deposit being made by the Petitioner before this court, the Registrar, Appellate Side shall invest the said amount in the fixed deposit of any nationalized Bank for a period of two years and further renewable for one year thereafter, if necessary."

(3.) ON 6th October, 2000 the Petitioner moved an application for restoration of the complaint. The contention of the Petitioner was that before withdrawing the complaint the advocate had not either consulted her nor had he obtained her consent. The application was dismissed by an order dated 2nd December, 2004 which is impugned in writ Petition 2598 of 2005. On 26th July, 2005 the Industrial Court passed another order in complaint (ULP) 588 of 1996 dismissing the complaint. That order has been challenged in Writ Petition 296 of 2006.