Dismissed

Punjaram Parasram Junghare and Others v. M.S.R.T.C. Nagpur Thr.Divisional Controller

Bombay HC10 Nov 2008WP/246/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court order refusing arrears under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, holding no existing right was carved out. However, granting liberty to file proper proceedings on the basis of recent Supreme Court judgments resolving long-pending controversies.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to file proper proceedings in the appropriate Court to claim reliefs based on judgments of the Bombay High Court and Supreme Court of India.

Punjaram Parasram Junghare and Others Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶3

Writ Petition No.246/1997

¶4

Punjaram Parasram Junghare and 9 Ors. ..vs.. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Nagpur

¶5

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶6

Court's or Judge's Orders

¶7

Mr. Sadavarte, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Charpe, Advocate for the respondent.

¶8

CORAM: A. B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 10th November, 2008

¶9

This writ petition is directed against the judgment

¶10

and order made by Labour Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Industrial Court having made a declaration in Complaint ULP No. 44/1980 for entitlement of the petitioners to the time scale benefits upon completion of 180 days, the application under Section 33C(2) was perfectly maintainable and was liable to be granted.

¶11

Per contra, Mr. Charpe learned counsel for the respondent, submits that no existing right was carved out by

¶12

¶13

the petitioners for maintaining the application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Industrial Court which is sine qua non . The Industrial Court having refused to award arrears of wages in terms, this Court cannot, in the absence of challenge to the said judgment, interfere in the present writ petition.

¶14

I have considered the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ..vs.. Premlal; JT 2007 (8) SC 430, finally set at rest the controversy, which was pending for long number of years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the Bombay High Court. This has been done in the recent past and in the whole background, I find that the petitioners cannot be deprived of the benefits if they are ultimately entitled to it under those judgments of the Bombay High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since no existing right was spelt out, I hold that application under

¶15

¶16

Section 33C(2) filed by the petitioners was not maintainable because no existing right was carved out by the petitioners. Hence, I confirm the judgment made by the Labour Court. However, this Court as well as the Apex Court have taken a view resolving the controversy which was pending for a long number of years and hence on that ground I grant liberty to the petitioners to file proper proceedings in the appropriate Court for the reliefs claimed in the present matter on the basis of the judgments of the Bombay High Court and Supreme Court of India. The respondent-MSRTC is entitled to resist such application if filed in accordance with law. The petitioners will have to prove their case in accordance with law before the Court. The petition is dismissed with liberty but with no order as to costs.

¶17

JUDGE

¶18

kahale

Punjaram Parasram Junghare and Others v. M.S.R.T.C. Nagpur Thr.Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjaram Parasram Junghare and Others v. M.S.R.T.C. Nagpur Thr.Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Vs Ind Synergy Ltd.

Dr. Dilip Kumar Shrivastava S/O Kp Shrivastav Vs Chairman Cum Managing Director Western Coal Fields and Ors.

Charandas Jangluji Meshram Vs State of Mah. Thr Secty for Urban Dev. Dept. Mumbai

Ku Shalini Gajananrao Dalal Vs Dr Sudhakarrao v Bhalerao and Others.

Sub-Area Manager W.C.L. Vs Regional Labour Commr.(Central)Cgo Complex,nAGPUR and Ors.

Leeladhar S/O Dnyaneshwar Mandhekar Vs Shri Purushottam Vithalrao Chaple