The only contention raised by Shri Pillai, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Industrial Court, Amravati, has seriously erred in rejecting the main complaint itself at the time of deciding the interim application under section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short 'the Unfair Labour Practices Act').
2. Nobody, appeared on behalf of the respondent.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find substance in the argument advanced. It would be seen that the petitioner filed a complaint before the Industrial Court, Amravati, under section 28 read with Schedule IV of the Unfair Labour Practices Act. 1971, praying that the order dated July the 31, 1990 issued by the respondent be set aside and the respondent be restrained from changing the present duties of the complainant, since it demonstrated Unfair Labour Practice.
4. Along with the complaint under section 28 of the Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, the petitioner also moved an application under section 30(2) of the Unfair Labour Practices Act, seeking interim relief for staying the effect and operation of the impugned order dated July 31, 1990 issued by the respondent and directing the respondent not to disturb the complainant from present place of work.
4-A. The non-applicant contested the application filing preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the complaint, and by the impugned order dated August 21, 1990 the Industrial Court has dismissed the main complaint itself.
5. There is no provision in the Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Enabling the concerned Court under the said Act to dismiss the complaint without holding the enquiry. Whether the complaint had an merit or not could only be established after the evidence was led by the complainant and merely because the non-applicant has filed the application, raising preliminary objection, on that ground the complaint could not have been dismissed. If the Industrial Court did not find any prima facie case in favour of the complainant, the application for interim relief under section 30(2) of the Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, could have been dismissed.
6. Admittedly, no enquiry has been conducted by the Industrial Court nor the complainant was afforded any opportunity to lead any evidence in support of his complaint and without that the Industrial Court found that the entire challenge in the complaint is without any basis and ill-founded. This reasoning of the Industrial Court cannot be sustained. It was only after the evidence has been led by the parties the Industrial Court could have come to the conclusion that the complaint was with or without any basis, but not at the preliminary stage.
7. Consequently, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed accordingly, and the order passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati on August 21, 1990 to the extent the complaint has been dismissed, is set aside. The Industrial Court, Amravati, is directed to proceed with the complaint filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.