Disposed

Vaijantibai N. Sawant v. the Commissioner - Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Jun 2008CAW/1203/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Clarification that a statement in an earlier order not prejudging the rights of an applicant under a civil decree and specifying that the applicant need not vacate premises but that the respondent is not liable for interest on retiral dues.

What did the court decide?

Clarification that the petitioner need not vacate premises under the earlier statement; respondent not liable for interest on retiral dues or employment representation.

.This civil application is preferred for speaking to the minutes of the order passed in W.P.7137 of 2007 and for clarifying that the observations with regard to vacating premises should not in any manner mean that the petitioner applicant is prevented from enjoying fruits of decree in Special Civil Suit No.198 of 2005.

2.The submission of petitioner’s Advocate is that the petition challenged the order passed by the Industrial Court dismissing the revision application which was directed against the order passed by the labour court dated 20th November 2006. That was a complaint under M.R.T.U. and PULP Act. It alleged unfair labour practices. While the petitioner could not succeed in the challenge, this Court ensured that the petitioner gets her retiral dues. At that time due to

inadvertence and mistake on the part of the Advocate, it could not be pointed out that the premises in the occupation of the petitioner were not service quarters but a substantive allotment in her favour. In such circumstances, the statement that the premises are staff quarters and would, therefore, be vacated by 31st December 2008 was made under misconception and that would cause serious loss and prejudice. The same would completely defeat the rights of the petitioner in a decree rendered on 21st November 2006 in the above suit in her favour.

3.Mr.Rao appearing for Corporation states that this statement has been made by the Advocate on instructions from petitioner and the undertaking is given on that basis. There is no case made out for clarifying or for relieving the petitioner from undertaking. Alternatively, if this Court is inclined to give clarification, then, respondents should not be directed to pay interest on retiral dues.

4.After hearing both sides and perusing the application so also the earlier order and the decree in the civil suit, it is clarified that the statement recorded would not in any manner prejudice rights of the petitioner under the decree in the special civil suit and merely because this Court has recorded a statement does not mean that the premises are held to be staff quarters or that they must be vacated contrary to the orders of the executing Court in favour of the petitioner, if any.

5.Needless to state that rights and contentions of both sides in the execution are kept open. It is clarified that the petitioner will not be required to vacate the premises in furtherance of the statement made in para 6 of the order dated 2nd April 2008. However, it is

directed that on the retiral dues the Corporation should not pay any interest as stated in the order nor the Corporation would be obliged to consider any representation on behalf of the petitioner for employment to her son or family members. With this clarification, application for speaking to the minutes is disposed of.

Vaijantibai N. Sawant v. the Commissioner - Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaijantibai N. Sawant v. the Commissioner - Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation and Anr.

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

Industrial Development Bank of India Vs O.L.of Bharat Pipes and Fittings Ltd.

Yamuna M. Shinde Vs S.R.A. and Ors. and Ganesh v. Chilveri and Ors.

Malabar Hill Citizen'S Forum and Ors. Vs Uday Anant Gurav and Ors.

Sakina Tayabji Dholkawalla and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

K.M. Salian Vs Bank of Baroda

Sayyed Ali Akbar Murtuzai Partners of M/S.May Rose Restaurant Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.