Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 596 (BOM)

Warana Sahakaru Dudha Utpadak Prakriya Sangh Limited v. Tanaji Bapurao Telli

2010-04-16

ANOOP V.MOHTA

body2010
JUDGMENT: 1 Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally. 2 The petitioner/employer has challenged the impugned orders by which at adinterim stage, the learned Member, Industrial Court has passed the following order: "COMMON ORDER 1. Application at Exh. U18 in Com.ULP No.230/2003, U16 in Com.ULP No. 231/2003, U16 in Com. ULP No.232/2003 & U17 in Com.ULP No. 513/2003 are allowed. 2. The Complainants 1) Shri Tanaji Baburao Teli, 2) Shri Subhash Gunga Bache, 3) Shri Vyankarrao Maruti Patil & 4) Shri Shridhar Sakharam Biranje are directed to deposit the VRFS amount received from the Company within 2 months from today and if the amount is not deposited within 2 months, then the complaint will proceed further on merits. 3. The Complaint to come up on board on 8th January 2010." 3 The Review against the same as preferred was also dismissed by Order dated 22.01.2010. 4 Admittedly, the respondents accepted/acted upon the VRS Scheme and accepted the substantial amount. As there was difference and dispute about the difference on the basis of respective claim of the complainants, the present complaints have been initiated along with the Applications for adinterim reliefs. The petitioner, in reply to the said complaint, filed a written statement and resisted the case and provided its alternative submission in the following words: "17 The Respondent submits that in any event, if this Hon. Court, prima facie comes to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to any relief, or if the complainant desirous to join on duties being the V.R.S. Is not acceptable to him, then the Respondent is ready and willing take the complainant in the employment provided the complainant deposits the amount received to the complainant and the interest thereon at the Bank rate." 5 The learned Jude, therefore, based upon this, at interim stage itself, has passed the above order. 6 One has to see the basic claim/complaint in the present case. The prayers are only for differences based upon the VRS Scheme which was acted upon by both the parties. Therefore, at this stage, in my view, though averment so made by the petitioner that itself cannot be the reason to direct the complainants to deposit the scheme amount they have received. It was never the case of the complainants that they are not agreeing or accepting the VRS Scheme except the difference amount. Therefore, at this stage, in my view, though averment so made by the petitioner that itself cannot be the reason to direct the complainants to deposit the scheme amount they have received. It was never the case of the complainants that they are not agreeing or accepting the VRS Scheme except the difference amount. Therefore, having once accepted the same and dispute is only with regard to the difference, there is no question of going back to the original position by depositing the said amount in full in view of the common ad interim order in question. In my view, it is inconsistent with their own prayers and it affects all the parties who acted upon the VRS Scheme and basically when there was no challenge to the scheme as such, except the difference. 7 The petitioner, in a given case and after renegotiating the matter, may accept the order and/or proceed, but in the above facts and in view of the clear accepted position on record, I see such impugned order of directing the complainant to deposit the amount pending the main complaint is impermissible and will create more complications than solving it. At adinterim stage, the Court just cannot go beyond the basic prayers of the complainant. The impugned orders so passed, in my view, are totally contradictory to the pleadings as well as the prayers so raised by the complainants. 8 It is made clear that without going further into the merits of the matter, as the main complaints are still pending, the learned Member to decide the same in accordance with law. The parties are at liberty to see and settle the matter. All points are kept open. 9 The impugned orders dated 07.11.2009 and 18.03.2009 are quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer (a). 10 Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.