This writ petition concerned delayed wage payments by a public sector undertaking. The Court observed the existence of an alternative remedy before the Industrial Tribunal and the State's efforts to settle dues. The petition was dismissed.
No order in the matter; liberty granted to seek alternative remedy.
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 COURTOF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3891 OF 2007
MAFCO Karmachari Sanghatana V/s
MAFCO Ltd. & Others
..Petitioner
..Respondent.
Ms Hutoxi Tavadia i/b H.V. Kode for the petitioner.
Mr. V.P. Vaidya i/b M/s Mahesh Jain & Co. for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
Mr. S.R. Nargolkar for respodnent Nos. 6 and 7.
CORAM : J.N.PATEL AND
A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE : 21ST SEPTEMBER, 2007.
P.C.
. Heard. The learned Counsel for the petitioner
| has drawn |
o | ur attention to the fact that the |
employees |
|---|---|---|---|
| of the respon |
dent | No. 1 were the members of the |
Union, |
| are not |
being | paid wages regularly and this is |
causing |
| undue hard |
ship. | What has been high-lighted before |
us |
| is that |
the | respondent Company is taking steps |
for |
| payment of |
wages. For the present the employees |
are | |
| not getting |
their wages regularly. She has |
placed | |
| reliance in |
the | case in Kapila Hingorani V. State |
of |
| Bihar, report |
ed | in (2003) 6 SCC 1, to impress u |
pon the |
| Court that |
the Supreme court has recognised the |
fact | |
| that it |
is | obligatory on the part of the Stat |
e to |
| discharge | its | liability in respect of payment of |
wages |
| of employees |
not | only of the State but also State |
owned |
| Corporations, | P | ublic Sector Undertakings, |
Statutory |
| Bodies. | A | ccording to the petitioner, respondent |
No.1 |
is a Public Sector Undertaking of the State of
Maharashtra.
paid at all.
dismissed with no order as to costs with liberty to the
petitioner to seek alternative remedy.
[J.N.Patel, J.]
[A.A.Sayed, J.]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court should exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to direct payment of wages and processing of disinvestment.
Whether the petitioner Union has an alternative remedy before the Industrial Tribunal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kapila Hingorani V. State of Bihar, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 1Referred¶14
1 provisions across 1 enactments
MAFCO Karmachari Sanghatana
MAFCO Ltd.
J.N. Patel
A.A. Sayed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
