Dismissed

Saiman Engineers and Anr. v. Ashok Eju D'Souza and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Sept 2007LPA/165/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay in Letters Patent Appeal No.165 of 2007 dismissed the appeal filed by an employer challenging an Industrial Court order. The Court held that under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, the Industrial Court has jurisdiction to ascertain legal dues flowing from an agreement settlement. The appeal against the calculation of dues and interest was rejected.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. The Civil Application No.298 of 2007 is disposed of as infructuous.

Saiman Engineers and Anr. Vs Ashok Eju D'Souza… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.165 OF 2007
 IN
 WRIT PETITION NO.8265 OF 2005

¶5

 Saiman Engineers & Anr. .. Appellants
 Vs.

¶6

 Ashok E. D’souza and Ors. .. Respondents

¶7

 Mr.R.S.Pai h/f Mr.G.M.Thomas and Mr.Annapurna Jari
 for the appellants

¶8

 Mr.K.S.Patil for respondent nos.1 to 5

¶9

 CORAM : J.N.PATEL &
 A.A.SAYED, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 4TH SEPTEMBER, 2007

¶11

 P.C.:

¶12

 1. Heard.

¶13

 2. The employer who has filed this Letters
 Patent Appeal has impugned the order passed by the
 Industrial Court and upheld by the learned single
 Judge of this court on the ground that the
 Industrial Court acted beyond his Jurisdiction and
 has allowed the complaint which was not
 maintainable as the alleged unfair labour practice

¶14

¶15

 could not come under item 9 of Schedule IV of the
 MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 at the most it may fall under
 Item 1 and the Jurisdiction for entertaining such
 complaints vests with the Labour court. Further,
 it is contended that the member of the learned
 Industrial Court took upon itself to compute legal
 dues relating to payment of Gratuity and so on
 which has to be determined independently under the
 Gratuity Act.

¶16

 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
 the respondents / employees submits that the
 Judgment and Order does not call for any
 interference for the very reason that though the
 employees challenge the method and manner the
 services came to be determined, but in substance
 they have sought for implementation of the
 agreement which on submitting resignation entitles
 them for all the dues which have been specified in
 para 3 (g) of the complaint and the Industrial
 Court has accordingly granted the same and has
 rightly observed that the nature of complaint would
 come under item 9 of Schedule IV of the said Act.

¶17

¶18

 4. We find that while dealing with the case
 under item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP
 Act, 1971, the Industrial Court is vested with the
 Jurisdiction to ascertain the legal dues which flow
 from the agreement settlement arrived at between
 the parties i.e. the employer and the employees.
 Therefore, we do not find any error or illegality
 in the decision rendered by the Industrial Court
 and upheld by the learned single Judge of this
 court.

¶19

 5. An attempt was made to canvas before us

¶20

 that even the calculations are not properly done
 and the court has granted interest @ 12%. But we
 find that the calculation has been done as per the
 claim so established by the employees before the
 Industrial Court and as it is based on facts,
 therefore, no interference is called for. Letters
 Patent Appeal is dismissed accordingly.

¶21

 5. In view of the dismissal of the L.P.A.
 Civil Application No.298 of 2007 does not survive.
 The same is also disposed of as infructuous.

¶22

¶23

( J.N. PATEL, J )

¶24

 ( A.A. SAYED, J )

Saiman Engineers and Anr. v. Ashok Eju D'Souza and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saiman Engineers and Anr. v. Ashok Eju D'Souza and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Rashid Abdul Gani Turk Vs the Union of India and Ors.

M/S. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gunjan Adukia Agarwal Vs Santosh Adukia

Arvind Sadashiv Natekar Vs Anilkumar Popatlal Bamb and Anr.

Shri. Hiren Shashikant Pandya Vs Smt. Meghna Hiren Pandya Nee Meghna Chandravadan Bhatt

Adhyaatman-Bhamini Vs Jagdish Ambalal Shah