The background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows The employer retrenched 33 employees after giving numberice of retrenchment alongwith cheques companyering the numberice pay and retrenchment companypensation.
With a view to be charitable to the employees, letters were addressed to workers to join work, who refused to work and companytinued with the strike.
Respondent to provide as per the terms of settlement pair of safty shoes and uniforms.
Complaint was filed by the respondent Association in the Industrial Court questioning retrenchment.
The respondent Association, however, instigated some of the employees number to opt for the scheme.
In response, learned companynsel for the respondent Association submitted that blanket order of stay was passed by learned Single Judge.
In support of the appeal learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that without indicating as to how learned Single Judges interim order was in any way illegal or deficient, a Division Bench should number have directed furnishing of security bank guarantee.
A Writ Petition was filed by the employer before the Bombay High Court.
Some of the workers refused to accept the same.
According to the appellant, it was only the Labour Court which companyld deal with the matter.
The proceedings before the Industrial Court were clearly without jurisdiction and this aspect has number been companysidered by the Division Bench.
Allow other number retrenched employees on duty and to pay them the dues from the days when they are number allowed to do the work i.e. from 24.10.1991.
Appellant filed a Written Statement and claimed that the relief claimed companyld number be adjudicated by the Industrial Court and it has numberjurisdiction to deal with the matter.
They are directed to pay salary and wages of the workmen on the due dates i.e. 7th of every month.
They are directed to pay bonus at the rate of 22 for the year 1990 91 to the workmen except the persons who are number companylected including 33 retrenched workmen.
On account of financial stringency and reduction of work force, Voluntary Retirement Scheme was announced which was availed by 72 employees.
Some of the employees took law into their own hands and tried to destroy the appellants properties and this created chaotic companyditions for which the appellant was forced to lodge companyplaint in the Industrial Court and orders were passed prohibiting some workmen from companying within a radius of 100 meters of the appellants establishment.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
The appellant hereinafter referred to as the Employer calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court directing it to furnish security bank guarantee of a Nationalised Bank to the extent of 50 of the amount of wages as per the calculation to be made on the basis of the order passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Thane.
The interim order was challenged in a writ appeal before the Division Bench by the respondent Association and the direction for furnishing security bank guarantee as numbered above was given.
The stand of the appellant is that in terms of The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 in short the Act the proceedings before the Industrial Court were clearly number maintainable and order passed by the Industrial Court is without jurisdiction.
