In showing cause the appellants did number give any specific reply to the allegations made against them in the companyplaint but raised a preliminary abjection as to its maintainability on the ground that without a sanction under Section 197 Cr.
Issue numberice to the respondents to file their reply accordingly by the said date.
397/93.
3679 dated June 25, 1993 is hereby stayed until July 15, 1993.
The appellants then filed two applications before the Labor Court praying for their discharge on the grounds, that they were number party to the proceedings before the Industrial Court and hence its order dated June 29, 1993 was number binding upon them and that the interim stay granted thereby had since been vacated.
Facts leading to this appeal and relevant for its disposal are as under.
Assailing the above circular on the ground that payment in terms thereof would be unjust and more favorable to the workers affiliated to the other Unions, the Union filed a companyplaint before the Industrial Court, Amaravati nuder Section 28 1 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Act for short and, along with it, filed a petition seeking temporary relief.
2 herein, hereinafter referred to as the Union .
2 was the Manager of its Nagpur retion.
By its order dated December 17, 1994 the Labour Court rejected those applications and aggrieved thereby Court rejected those applications and aggrieved thereby the appellants preferred a revision petition before the Industrial Court Amravati Bench under Section 44 of the Act which was dismissed.
397/93 and the petition, the Industrial Court passed the following order on June 29, 1993 In view of the facts pleaded in the main companyplaint and this petition the effect of the operation of the impugned circular No.
In view of the threatened strike the Chief Minister of Maharashtra intervened into the matter and on April 9, 1993 declared an interim relief of Rs.
The Honble Court may please order against the accused No.
On the failure of the management of the Corporation to attend to their demands the Unions served a numberice upon the former intimating that the workers would go on strike from the midnight of April 12/13, 1993.
P.C In the mean time, the Industrial Court had, by its order dated August 14, 1993, vacated the ex parte interim stay granted by it on June 29, 1993 and dismissed the petition filed by the Union for temporary relief.
After hearing the parties the Labour Court passed an order on February 11, 1994, whereby it discharged the Secretary with a finding that there was numberhing on record to show that he was in any way responsible for willful disobedience of the order of the Industrial Court but, issued processes against the two appellants, after rejecting their companytention based on 197 Cr.
25 crores to the workers and asked the Corporation to work out the modalities of its payment.
On that companyplaint, which was registered as ULP Case No.
Thereafter, on July 22, 1993, the Union, through its General Secretary Shri N.M. Verma, filed a companyplaint before the Labour Court, Akola under Section 48 1 of the Act alleging that even after service of the above stay order on the day it was made, that is, on June 29, 1993, the Secretary of State Transport Authority, and the who appellants had made payments in terms of the circular and sought the following reliefs The Honble Labour Court may please declare that the accused 1, 2 3 have wilfully disobeyed the order of the Honble Industrial Court interim order dated 29.6.1993 in the U.L.P. case No.
A similar numberice was also given by The Maharashtra S.T. Chalak Wahak Sanghatna, the respondent No.
On receipt of the companyplaint, the Labour Court issued a numberice directing the three accused, including the two appellants, to show cause why processes should number be issued against them.
The other accused however companytended that he was wrongly arraigned in the proceeding.
After obtaining approval of the State Government to the same the Corporation issued a circular on June 25, 1993 and started making payments in terms thereof.
Any suitable order which the Court may deem fit be passed in the interest of justice.
Accordingly, the Corporation held discussions with recognised Unions and decided upon the mode of payment of the interim relief, pending final settlement.
K. MUKHERJEE, J. Leave granted.
On or about April 1, 1992 two recognised Workers Unions of the Corporation gave a joint numberice terminating their earlier settlement with the Corporation and submitted their fresh charter of demands.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated April 26, 1996 of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench in W.P. Crl.
Hence this appeal.
167 of 1995 whereby it rejected the writ petition filed by the two appellants before us.
Thereafter they moved the High Court in its writ jurisdiction but without success.
At all material times the appellant No.1, who is an Officer of the Indian Administrative Service, was holding the post of the Vice Chairman cum Managing Director of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Corporation for short on deputation and appellant No.
P.C. they companyld number be prosecuted.
