In a notice of motion filed under a writ petition, the court addressed claims regarding the applicability of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act and the maintainability of the motion following interim relief.
Motion rejected as not maintainable after interim relief was granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.143 OF 2004
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2677 OF 2002
New India Co-operative Bank Limited...Petitioner
Versus
Shankar B. Bangera..................Respondent Mr.P.K. Rele i/b. Piyush Shah, for the petitioner. Mr. N.M. Ganguli, for Respondent.
CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, J. DATE : 24th September,2004
P.C.:
| provisions | of | Section | 17B | Industrial | Disputes |
Act | should | be |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| considered | even | though | the | present | is a |
case | under | the |
| provisions | of | the | Bombay | Industrial | Relations | Act. | It | is |
further contended that when this Court passed the order on 5th
January, 2004 granting interim relief he was not present.
| applicable | to |
only | those | cases | gove | rned | by | the provisions |
of |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| the | Industrial | Dis | putes Act, |
1947. | In | so | far as other |
Acts | |
| are | concerne | d, | while | consideri | ng | an | app | lication for |
interim |
| relief | it is |
always | open |
to the |
Court | to | issue such |
directions | |
| which | in law |
can | be given |
on |
the | fa |
cts | of any particula |
r case, |
| however, | Sectio | n 17B |
of I.D. |
Act | is | not | applicable. In |
the | |
| instant | case | after | the | notice | to | the | respondent, | interim | |
| relief | was g |
ranted. | The | Court | did | no | t pass any |
order | |
| directing | continu | ance | of or |
pa |
yment | of |
any | money to |
the |
respondent. As such after the order of 5th January, 2004 the
present motion as filed would not be maintainable.
| 3. | If, | however, | it is the | case of the res | pondent t | hat | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| when | interim | relief | was | granted | he | was | not | properly | served it |
|
| is | for | him | to | take | appropriate | steps | which | he |
may | be entitled |
considered
in the
to in law. At any rate that cannot be
present Motion taken out by him. For the aforesaid reason no
case made out. Motion rejected.
(F.I. REBELLO, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act.
Whether the present notice of motion is maintainable after the interim relief granted on 5th January, 2004.
Whether the respondent can challenge the grant of interim relief if he claims non-service.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
New India Co-operative Bank Limited
Shankar B. Bangera
F.I. REBELLO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
