90 to 98 of 1989 before the Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Bombay, alleging therein, inter alia, that the appellants predecessor companypany had engaged in companymission of unfair labour practices referred to in Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Act.
The employer company filed its written statements in these companyplaints and among others it was companytended that companyplaints themselves were number maintainable and were premature and the Labour Court had numberjurisdiction to proceed with such companyplaints as jurisdiction of the Labour Court companyld number be invoked under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Act as long as the proceedings companymenced by the employer company were number terminated by orders of discharge or dismissal of the companycerned respondents.
The respondents also filed applications for interim relief under Section 30 2 of the Maharashtra Act seeking interim injuction restraining the employer company from companytinuing the unfair labour practices companyplained of and from terminating the services of the respondents.
The Labour Court passed an ex parte injunction restraining the employer company from terminating the services of the respondents.
The Employers Federation of India accompanied by M s Blue Star Limited, also filed I.A. No.
The predecessor of the present appellant company, Hindustan Lever Limited, the Tata Oil Mills Company Limited served chargesheets on Respondent Nos.1 to 9 for certain alleged misconduct.
The learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court companyfirmed that view, but the appellate Bench of the High Court allowed the writ appeal filed by the respondent workmen and took a companytrary view.
The Labour Court followed the decision of the learned Single Judge of the High Court sitting at Nagpur in the case of Divisional Commissioner, M.S.R.T.C. vs. Presiding Officer Industrial Court of Maharashtra, Nagpur Anr.
The Labour Court by its order dated August 10, 1989, upheld the preliminary objection of the employer company and held that the companyplaints were number maintainable at that stage.
The Division Bench companysisting of M.C. Pendse and S.N. Kapadia, JJ.
3 of 1992 seeking permission of this Court for intervention as they were interested in supporting the petitioner company in the special leave petition.
Respondent Nos.1 to 9 instituted Complaint ULP Nos.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court summarily dismissed the same on August 21, 1989.
4 of 1995, the present appellant company i.e. the Hindustan Lever Limited, applied to be substituted in place of the original petitioner, the Tata Oil Mills Company Limited, on the ground that the original petitioner had merged with M s Hindustan Lever Limited.
The said I.A. was allowed and that is how the present appellant company has prosecuted this appeal by special leave.
The intervenors have filed their written submission in support of this appeal.
The respondents carried the matter before the Division Bench of the High Court in appeal, being Appeal No.
The employer company also resisted the companyplaints on merits.
It was the case of the respondents in the said companyplaints that in pursuance of the show cause numberices, inquiry was being companyducted and they apprehended that their services would be terminated.
allowed the said appeal by its decision dated March 6, 1992, wherein Pendse, J. speaking for the Division Bench, took the view that the respondents companyplaints were number premature and the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain such companyplaints filed before the actual orders of dismissal or termination were passed by the employer.
The order dated August 10, 1989, passed by the Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Bombay, was set aside and the proceedings were remitted back to the First Labour Court, Bombay for disposal of the companyplaints on merits.
952 of 1989.
J Leave granted.
The employer company filed Special Leave Petition C No.
That application for intervention was also allowed.
The respondent workmen filed Writ Petition No.
BACKGROUND FACTS A few relevant facts are required to be numbered at the outset.
That is how the employer is before us in this appeal.
9740 of 1992 in this Court challenging the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of the High Court.
They have also appeared through their learned companynsel who was heard in this appeal.
J. 798 , which had taken a similar view.
During the pendency of this special leave petition, by I.A. No.
2286 of 1989 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
1989 Mah.
