Remanded

Gad Shipping and Transport Pvt.Ltd. v. Goods Transport Labour Board and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Feb 2007WP/4904/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court set aside the portion of the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's request to withdraw workers based on decreased workload. The matter was remanded to reconsider this specific contention.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejected for the petitioner's request regarding decreased workload; matter remanded for fresh decision; rest of the order remains.

Gad Shipping and Transport Pvt.Ltd. Vs Goods Transport… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.4904 OF 2006

¶4

GAD Shipping & Transport Pvt.Ltd.....Petitioner
V/s.

¶5

Goods Transport Labour Board & Ors. ....Respondents

¶6

Mr.P.K. Rele, Senior Counsel with Mr.P.N. Anaolkar
and Mr.R.P. Rege for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mrs.Lata Desai i/b Mrs.Pallavi Divekar for Respondent
No.1.

¶8

Mrs.Bharati Patil for Respondent No.3.

¶9

CORAM : F.I. REBELLO, &
S.J. VAZIFDAR, JJ.
DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2007.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1.Rule. Rule returnable and heard forthwith.

¶12

2.The Petitioner has impugned an order dated
24.5.2006 passed by Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2
is the Maharashtra Mathadi & General Kamgar Union.
Respondent No.3 is Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi,
Transport & General Kamgar Union. Respondent No.4 is
the Collector, Raigad.

¶13

3.The Petitioner had registered itself with
Respondent No.1 and was allotted Toli No.1877

¶14

: 2 :

¶15

consisting of 110 Mathadi workers.

¶16

4.41 Mathadi workers claiming to be members of
the third Respondent union submitted a charter of
demands. The Petitioner entered into a settlement
dated 17.2.2006 with the third Respondent union
inter-alia in respect of wages.

¶17

5.Thereafter Respondent No.1 by its letter
dated 22.3.2006 bifurcated the Toli of Mathadi workers
into two Tolis bearing Toli Nos.1877 and 1877-A. The
said 41 members were part of Toli No.1877 and the
remaining 69 members were part of Toli No.1877-A. It
appears that the bifurcation had been sought by the
second Respondent union.

¶18

6.By a letter dated 6.5.2006 addressed to the
Petitioner, Respondent No.1 contended that the
Petitioner had failed to deposit an amount of about
Rs.2,63,179=99 paise. The Petitioner was therefore,
called upon to attend an enquiry.

¶19

7.The Petitioner by its reply dated 12.5.2006
raised various contentions. For the present purpose,
it is sufficient to note that the Petitioner has
specifically contended that due to inadequate work, it

¶20

: 3 :

¶21

was unable to pay the increased wages. The Petitioner
further admitted that it had paid the increased wages
as per the said settlement only to the workers
pertaining to the Toli No.1877, as the agreement was
entered into only with the third Respondent union of
which they were the members. It is important to note
that in respect of the workers pertaining to the Toli
No.1877-A, the Petitioner had specifically requested
that the Board should withdraw the workers as there
was a decrease in the workload at the warehouse. The
Petitioner therefore requested the first Respondent
Board to take back these workers.

¶22

8.By the impugned order dated 24.5.2006, the
Petitioner’s contention and request were rejected.

¶23

9.We are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order in so far as it directs the payment of
wages to all the workers. Admittedly, they had been
allotted to the Petitioner and they have not been
withdrawn till date. We however, find that the
Petitioner’s request for withdrawal of the workers has
not been properly considered in the impugned order.
The mere fact that they had been allotted is not by
itself sufficient to deal with the factual aspect as
to whether or not there was a decrease in the work

¶24

: 4 :

¶25

load.

¶26

10.In the circumstances, the Rule is

¶27

made absolute in the following terms :-

¶28

i).The impugned order is set aside only in so
far as it rejects the Petitioner’s contention
regarding decrease in work load. The matter
is remanded to Respondent No.1 for a decision
in this regard afresh. All the concerned
parties shall be entitled to file further
affidavits and/or documents. The decision to
be taken within four weeks from the
Petitioner paying all the outstanding amounts
to the Board and wages to the workers.

¶29

ii).Rest of the impugned order shall remain. The
Petitioner shall upto the date of the fresh
decision continue paying the wages as
payable.

¶30

iii).The amounts deposited in this Court shall be
paid over to the first Respondent Board.

¶31

iv).There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

: 5 :

¶33

(S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)

Gad Shipping and Transport Pvt.Ltd. v. Goods Transport Labour Board and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gad Shipping and Transport Pvt.Ltd. v. Goods Transport Labour Board 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

State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Balu Genubhau Gaware and Ors.

Manisha P. Kulkarni Vs Gokhale Education Society and Ors.

Suvarna Shamrao Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Arjun Devram Mathe and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Premchand Nathu Mahajan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ravindra Bhila Patil Vs Yogeshwar Education Society and Ors.