MOTOR INDUSTRIES COMPANY LIMITED Vs. DEELIP DAULAT DEORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Returnable forthwith. Ms. Seema Sarnayak, Advocate waives service for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. V. P. Malvankar, A. G. P. waives service for respondents No. 3 and 4. By consent the writ petition is taken-up for final hearing at this stage.

(2.) THE question, that may be of some importance is whether the Industrial Court exercising its power of superintendence under section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971) could give directions contemplated under section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short I. D. Act, 1947) assuming the power of High Court under Article-227 of Constitution of India.

(3.) THE respondents No. 1 and 2 were employed in the petitioner company which is public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent No. 1 herein was employed as Operator G-1 in Quality Control Range of the petitioner company, while respondent No. 2 herein was initially employed on 15-10-1971 and later on promoted as a Setter in A category in Production Range with effect from 1-2-1974. On 15-9-1989 theft of some 1710 nozzles of the value of Rs. 2,21,000/- was alleged to have been committed by two persons. An offence was registered and during the course of police investigation it transpired that some of the petitioners employees were accomplices in the crime. The involvement of respondents No. 1 and 2 herein in the said theft was suspected and both of them were suspended, pending issuance of chargesheet, enquiry and the final order. Later on the petitioner company by the order dated 30-8-90 dismissed the respondents No. 1 and 2 herein. The orders of dismissal were challenged by respondents No. 1 and 2 herein by filling two separate complaints under the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971. Both of them also made applications for grant of interim-relief. The respondent No. 3 herein viz. the Labour Court, Nasik by order dated 8-12-95 held that the petitioner had engaged in unfair labour practice in dismissing the services of respondents No. 1 and 2, and, directed the petitioner to reinstate both of them with continuity of service and full backwages from the date of their dismissal. The petitioners preferred two revision applications separately against the two orders passed by the Labour Court, and, the said revision applications came up before respondent No. 4 herein viz. Industrial Court, Nasik. On 27-12-95, the 4th respondent herein i. e. Industrial Court passed an order directing the petitioner herein to deposit full monthly wages and in compliance thereto the petitioner has been depositing full monthly wages for respondents No. 1 and 2 before the Industrial Court, Nasik. It appears that respondents No. 1 and 2 herein made an application Exhibit U-4 before the Industrial Court that the amount deposited by the petitioner may be allowed to be withdrawn since the respondents No. 1 and 2 herein were facing financial difficulties. By the impugned order dated 3-6-96 though the application made by respondents No. 1 and 2 herein Exhibit U-4 was rejected, but the Industrial Court, Nasik held that while exercising the powers under section 44 of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971, it assumes the power of the High Court and, therefore, there is nothing wrong if the provisions of section 17-B of the I. D. Act, 1947 is implemented by the Industrial Court till the revision application is heard and finally disposed of, and, accordingly in para-2 of the operative order held that-it has jurisdiction under section 44 of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971 to direct the petitioner herein to deposit the amount of backwages and thereby to comply with the provisions of section 17-B of the I. D. Act, 1947.