Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Shramik General Kamgar Union

Bombay HC16 Sept 2009LPA/160/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the State of Maharashtra's appeal against an Industrial Tribunal order directing reinstatement without back wages. The court distinguished a prior precedent, affirmed continuous service, and held that the Tribunal correctly applied section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act despite procedural irregularities in appointment.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court's reinstatement order under the Industrial Disputes Act.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shramik General… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.160 OF 2009 IN

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.4976 OF 2008

¶4

The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant Versus Shramik General Kamgar Union ... Respondents

¶5

Mr. A.P. Vanarse, Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant. Mr. Rahul Navlekar for the Respondent No.1.

¶6

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATED : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2009

¶7

P.C.

¶8

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶9

Vide its order dated 20th July, 2007, the Industrial Tribunal directed reinstatement of all the workmen, however, without back wages. The correctness of this order was challenged before the learned Single Judge of this court.

¶10

Writ Petition No.4976 of 2008 filed by the State of Maharashtra came to be dismissed vide order dated 1st September, 2008 giving rise to the filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal.

¶11

The arguments raised before us by relying upon the Division Bench

¶12

judgment of this court in the case of The State of Maharashtra and

¶13

another v. Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav, Letters Patent Appeal No.14 of 2008 in Writ Petition No.4141 of 2006, decided on 31st July, 2008 is that the workmen were not appointed as per the rules by following the prescribed procedure and, therefore, they have no legal right and the Management was not expected to comply with the process of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act as they were not workmen. This is primarily a finding of fact which has been recorded both by the Industrial Court as well as the learned Single Judge against the present appellant.

¶14

It is also contended that in these circumstances, there is no employer-employee relationship. We have already noticed that no such specific plea was taken and in any case, the State has miserably failed to prove even remotely this issued before the Industrial Court.

¶15

We see no reason to interfere in the finding of facts. Furthermore, it can hardly be disputed that workmen were working with the appellant for a considerable time running over 36 years and obviously, have completed 240 days of continuous service. This issue was hardly contested before the Industrial Court and was sought to be raised before the learned Single Judge which has rightly been rejected for the reasons recorded in para 5 of the impugned judgment. As far as judgment of Division Bench in the case of Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav (supra) is concerned, on facts and law it has no application to the present case in

¶16

asmsuch as there the persons in employment had prayed for permanency and further benefits on the basis of model orders of the State. The view was taken that since they were not appointed in accordance with the rules, their claim was not maintainable. In the present case, there has been wrongful termination in violation of the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no reason to interfere. Dismissed.

¶17

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶18

A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

The State of Maharashtra v. Shramik General Kamgar Union

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Shramik General Kamgar Union

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

Smt. Gargi Prasad Mhatre Vs the Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 2 Ors.

Manohar Gangadhar Aher Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Smt. Shamsunnisa a. Siddique and 5 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Juhu Urvashi Co-Operative Housing Society Limited and Ors. Vs Divisional Joint Registrar - Co-Operative Societies, Mumbai and Anr.

Sudhir Yeshwant Surve Vs Janhavi Sudhir Surve

Bajaj Electricals (India) Ltd. (Matchwell Unit). Vs 1.MR Madanlal Dalichand Shingvi and Anr.