Disposed

Subhash Namdeo Padwal v. Sub-Divisional Officer,Dimbe Right Bank Canal and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Jan 2007WP/6133/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a writ petition challenging non-reinstatement by holding that the petitioner could enforce the Industrial Court's order separately. The Court stated it would not exercise writ jurisdiction, considering the issue was before the Industrial Court, and directed respondents not to raise limitation if petitioner proceeded there.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed off; respondents directed not to raise limitation if petitioner takes proceedings before Labour/Industrial Court.

Subhash Namdeo Padwal Vs Sub-Divisional Officer,Dimbe… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 ((-1-))

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.6133 OF 2006

¶4

 Subhash Namdeo Padwal Petitioner
 versus

¶5

 Sub Divisional Officer,
 Dimbe Right Bank Canal & others Respondents

¶6

 Mr.S.S.Pakale for petitioner.
 Mrs.S.S.Bhende, AGP for respondents 1 to 4.

¶7

 CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND
 R.V.MORE, JJ.

¶8

 DATE : 22nd January 2007

¶9

 PC :

¶10

 1. The petitioner filed a complaint under the
 provisions of MRTU & PULP Act and an order came
 to be passed on 4th April 1997 directing the
 respondents to absorb the complainants in service
 in view of GR dated 1st December 1995. There is
 subsequent correspondence that the representation
 of the petitioners have been considered, yet the
 petitioner was not reinstated and hence the
 present petition.

¶11

 2. The respondents have filed the reply of
 D.K.Pokharkar. In paras 6 and 7 of the said it

¶12

 ((-2-))

¶13

 is pointed out that in terms of the GR, an
 employee to get the benefits, must be in service
 as on 31st March 1993. The petitioner was not in
 service since 1st March 1991 and as such cannot
 be entitled to the said benefit.

¶14

 3. That issue was an issue before the Industrial
 Court. The respondents have not challenged the
 said order. It will, therefore, be open for the
 petitioner to take such steps to which he is
 entitled to enforce the order of Industrial
 Court. Once the order is in favour of the
 petitioner, this Court would not exercise the
 writ jurisdiction but leave it open to the
 parties to take appropriate actions. With these
 observations the petition is disposed off.
 Considering that the petitioner is representing
 and pursuing the matter, if there is any delay,
 in taking out proceedings before the Labour
 Court/Industrial Court the respondents will not
 raise issue of limitation and the matter will be
 heard on merits.

¶15

 (R.V.MORE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)

Subhash Namdeo Padwal v. Sub-Divisional Officer,Dimbe Right Bank Canal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Namdeo Padwal v. Sub-Divisional Officer,Dimbe Right Bank Canal 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

Vivek Dattatraya Shinde Vs the Election Commission and Ors.

Manik Laxman Shinde Vs the State Election Commission and Anr.

Katraj Cliff Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation for the City of Pune and Anr.

M/S.United Enterprises Vs the General Manager- Raigad Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Rashmi Shyam Balwatkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dattatraya Walku Khutale Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr.