Disposed

Transport and Dock Workers Union v. Board of Trustees of Port Ofr Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Aug 2004WP/971/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay disposed of a writ petition protecting worker interests, noting that since a Tribunal reference was pending and a prior order protected them, nothing remained. A connected Notice of Motion was dismissed as withdrawn after the main petition disposal.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; Nothing survives; Rule discharged. Notice of Motion dismissed as withdrawn.

Transport and Dock Workers Union Vs Board of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 971 OF 2004

¶4

Transport and Dock Workers Union ...Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

Board of Trustees of Port of Mumbai and Ors.

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mr. Anand Grover with Ms. Firdaus Moosa instructed by Mr. Prakash Mahadik for the petitioner. Mr.Umesh Shetty instructed by M/s. Mulla & Mulla & Cragie Blunt and Caroe for respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

¶9

Mr. J.P.Cama instructed by Vyas & Bhalwal for respondent No.2.

¶10

CORAM : DALVEER BHANDARI, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.

¶11

DATE: AUGUST 13, 2004 .

¶12

P.C.

¶13

By consent of the parties, this petition is taken for final

¶14

disposal.

¶15

In view of the order dated 13^th July, 2004 passed by a Division Bench of this Court, which protects the interest of the

¶16

workers, and the Reference is pending before the Tribunal, nothing

¶17

survives in this petition. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶18

Both the parties would be at liberty to argue all the points before the Tribunal. Rule is discharged.

¶19

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶20

DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶22

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶23

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 385 OF 2004

¶24

¶25

WRIT PETITION NO. 971 OF 2004

¶26

Transport and Dock Workers Union ...Petitioners

¶27

Versus

¶28

Board of Trustees of Port of Mumbai and Ors.

¶29

...Respondents

¶30

Mr. J.P.Cama instructed by Vyas & Bhalwal for respondent No.2 in support.

¶31

Mr. Anand Grover with Ms. Firdaus Moosa instructed by Mr. Prakash Mahadik for the petitioner to show cause. Mr.Umesh Shetty instructed by M/s. Mulla & Mulla & Cragie Blunt and Caroe for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to show cause.

¶32

CORAM : DALVEER BHANDARI, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.

¶33

DATE: AUGUST 13, 2004 .

¶34

P.C.

¶35

Since the main petition has been disposed of, therefore,

¶36

nothing survives in this Notice of Motion. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 craves leave of the Court to withdraw this Notice

¶37

of Motion. The Notice of Motion is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

¶38

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶39

DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

Transport and Dock Workers Union v. Board of Trustees of Port Ofr Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Transport and Dock Workers Union v. Board of Trustees of Port Ofr Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chittaranjan Hsg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Maharashtra Hsg. and Area Development Authority and Ors.

Indian Ex-Services League Maharashtra and Ors. Vs B.M.C. and Anr.

Mustaq Ahmed Subanali Vs Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai

Parle Tilak Vidyalaya Association Vs University of Mumbai and Ors.

Ratanehan P. Jain Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Bipin Nathala Dharek Vs Union of India and Anr.