Disposed

The Girni Kamgar Karmchari Niwara and Kalayankar Sangh v. the State of Maharastra and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Jan 2008PIL/134/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In PIL regarding textile workers affected by mill closures, the Court directed the State to form a policy for worker rehabilitation and separation disputes, invoking the Monitoring Committee under DCR, and summoned compliance within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development to hold meetings, draw a scheme, list VRS/compensation details of workers, frame a policy, and utilize the Monitoring Committee to resolve dispute

The Girni Kamgar Karmchari Niwara and Kalayankar Sangh… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.134 OF 2006

¶3

 Girni Kamgar Karmchari & Kalyankar
 Sangh ..Petitioner.
 V/s.

¶4

 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶5

 Mr.I.A.Saiyed for petitioner.
 Mr.R.A.Dada, Senior counsel with Mrs.M.H.Doshi for
 respondent No.3.
 Mr.V.R.Dhond i/b.Federal & Rashmikant for respondent
 No.4.

¶6

 Ms.Geeta Shastri, A.G.P. for State.

¶7

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, J.
DATED : 17TH JANUARY, 2008.
P.C. :-

¶8

 1. We have heard the counsel appearing for the
 parties. The primary cause for filing this Writ
 Petition is to provide work to the Textile workers and
 give training as contemplated under Regulation 58 of
 DCR as a result of the closure of the mills either for
 relocation or redevelopment and that the State is under
 obligation to provide or ensure that the workmen are
 provided with employment. The counsel appearing for
 the concerned Departments of the State, National
 Textile Association and the Mills Owners Association
 submit that a Monitoring Committee has been established
 under Regulation 58 of the Development Control

¶9

 - = : 2 : = -

¶10

 Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 to look into the
 matter and determine the disputes raised by the workmen
 in relation to the said Mill. According to the
 petitioner, the Monitoring Committee has failed to
 comprehend and give effect accordingly in consonance
 with the provisions of regulation 58 of DCR.

¶11

 2. It is not necessary for us to determine the
 factual controversy. Suffice it to note that there are
 disputes between the parties and the same need to be
 put before the competent authority to ensure that the
 disputes of the parties appearing before the Court are
 settled. Keeping in mind this basic object, we issue
 the following directions:-

¶12

 i) The Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development
 Department, Government of Maharashtra shall
 hold a meeting inviting various organisations
 appearing in this petition, including the
 petitioners in a representative capacity and
 draw a definite scheme for the workmen so as to
 settle the disputes between the parties. The
 workmen are at liberty to be represented
 through their counsel.

¶13

 ii) The Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development
 Department shall also look into the grievances

¶14

 - = : 3 : = -

¶15

 of the Mill workers of more than 20 mills which
 had approached the Government for development
 of Mill lands irrespective of the fact as to
 whether the workers of those Mills had
 approached the Court or not.

¶16

 iii) Workmen shall file a composite statement giving
 details of the workmen who have opted for VRS
 or closure compensation. This list shall
 contain whether the workmen had full and final
 settlement of the accounts including the
 voluntary retirement scheme and the basic
 qualification of the workmen as it is an
 important aspect to be considered if the matter
 is to be resolved particularly after amendment
 to Regulation 58 of DCR.

¶17

 iv) The above list shall be furnished to the
 Secretary within 3 months from today as prayed
 by the learned counsel appearing for the
 petitioner.

¶18

 v) Upon submission of the said list, the Secretary
 after having served the notice on the concerned
 parties shall deal with the particulars
 furnished and frame appropriate policy.
 Whatever dispute or policy is determined by the

¶19

 - = : 4 : = -

¶20

 State that should not be referred to the
 Monitoring Committee. However, if there are
 any points which require adjudication or
 determination, the matter shall be referred to
 the Monitoring Committee and the Monitoring
 Committee shall expeditiously deal with those
 matters. Before and even while framing the
 Policy, the Secretary concerned shall work in
 consultation with the representative through
 its Chairman to ensure that there shall be no
 conflict.

¶21

 vi) The Secretary as well as the Monitoring
 Committee shall work as expeditiously as
 possible keeping in view the fact that the
 workmen themselves are claiming 3 months for
 filing the composite statement.

¶22

 6. In the light of the above directions, the
 petition is disposed of with no orders as to costs.

¶23

 7. Liberty to the parties to take action as are
 permitted to them in accordance with law upon
 compliance of the above directions.

¶24

 8. All concerned to act on the authenticated
 copy of the order.

¶25

 - = : 5 : = -

¶26

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶27

J.P.DEVADHAR, J.

The Girni Kamgar Karmchari Niwara and Kalayankar Sangh v. the State of Maharastra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Girni Kamgar Karmchari Niwara and Kalayankar Sangh v. the State of Maharastra and Anr.

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

Kiran Devkumar Jadhav and Anr. Vs the City Survey Officer, Sangli and Ors.

Shetkari Sangharsh Samitee and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shetkari Sangharsh Samitee and Anr. Vs M/S.Maharashtra Energy Generation Limited and Ors.

Shetkari Sangharsh Samitee and Anr. Vs M/S. Patni Energy Private Ltd. and Ors.

Prashant Surve Vs Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai and 5 Ors.

Arun Deo and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Varsha Laxmanrao Deshpande Vs Union of India and Ors.

Varsha Laxmanrao Deshpande Vs Union of India and Ors.

Viral Suresh Salot Vs Mumbai Mahanagar Regional Development Authority and Anr.

Milind Nagar Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anil Dupte Vs Amogh Sawant

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Valu Yesu Suryavanshi (Nhavi) and Ors.

Nitin Vishnu Dhone Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Sanjeev Kumar Dada Thane Vs Dr. J.J. Magdum Charitable Trust and Ors.