WRIT PETITION 5006 of 1991 on 16 November 2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 218 OF 2001in

WRIT PETITION NO.5006 OF 1991

Government Milk Scheme, Miraj ... Appellant

vs

The General Secretary,Lal Bavta Kamgar Union.. Respondents& ors Mr.S.R.Nargolkar A.G.P.for AppellantMr.N.J.Patil for Respondent nos. 3 to 5.

2. The appellant State has preferred the LPA against the judgment and order dated 16th November,2000 passed by the learned Single Judge of thisCourt in Writ Petition No. 5006 of 1991 wherein theappellant had challenged the order passed on 27thJuly 1991 by the Industrial Tribunal on thecomplaint lodged by the respondent-contractor ofworkmen who are the respondents.

3. The contention of the learned A.G.P. is that the complaint was not within the jurisdiction of theIndustrial Tribunal as the grievance of thecomplainant was regarding the termination of servicewhich will lie within the jurisdiction of the labourCourt under item 1A of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULPAct, 1971. The learned A.G.P. submitted that oncethe complainant approaches the tribunal with agrievance that his services has been discontinued itamounts to termination and therefore the learnedSingle Judge failed to consider the issue ofjurisdiction in its proper perspective.

4. We have gone through the record and proceedingsof the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

5. In our view, the sum and substance of thegrievance of the respondents clearly brings theircase under item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act. Thisis borne out even from the evidence on record onadmission given by the appellant’s own witness. Thelearned Single Judge has discussed the issue in hisjudgment in para 5 and 6 and has also referred tothe evidence. We therefore, do not find that thelearned Single Judge has committed any error orillegality in dismissing the Writ Petition and upholding the order of the Industrial Court.Therefore, we do not find any merits in the L.P.A.and the same is dismissed with costs.

Since we have dismissed this appeal, both theCivil Applications does not survive and is disposedof accordingly. The learned A.G.P. submits thatthe ad interim relief granted in the appeal may becontinued for further period of six weeks to enablethe State to consider whether it should approach theSupreme Court in the matter. We are not inclined tocontinue the ad interim reliefs as this LPA No.218of 2001 is pending since then. Further there is noquestion of law involved in the matter and thereforerequest of the A.G.P. to continue the ad interimrelief stands rejected.

(J.N. Patel, J.)

(K.K. Tated, J.)