Allowed

Maharashtra Employees Union v. M/S Santosh Industries and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Feb 2009LPA/380/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Letters Patent Appeal concerns an industrial dispute where the appellant claimed the respondent's unit closure was a pretext for retrenchment. The High Court allowed the appeal, relying on the High Court of Judicature at Bombay judgment that dismissed the complaint as no case was made out under Section 47 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The order directed the employer to deposit dues if the uni

What did the court decide?

Order directing employer to deposit dues in Labour Court if union refuses to accept Pay-Order.

Maharashtra Employees Union Vs M/S Santosh… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

 .{1}.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.380 OF 2008
 IN
 WRIT PETITION NO.2619 OF 2008

¶4

 Maharashtra Employees Union. ..Appellants.
 Versus
 M/s. Santosh Industries
 and 2 others. ..Respondents.

¶5

 Mr.Ashok D. Shetty & Ms.Rita K. Joshi, Advocates for
 the appellant.

¶6

 Mr.K.S.Bapat, Advocate i/b. Shri T.R.Yadav, Advocate
 for respondent No.1.

¶7

CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND
SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ.

¶8

DATED : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2009.
 P.C.:-

¶9

 1. Heard.

¶10

 2. The only issue raised before us and argued

¶11

 before us in this Appeal was that the Labour Court
 has failed to take into consideration that the
 respondent Union have not closed and the closure was
 just a reason to retrench the appellants.

¶12

 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has not

¶13

 .{2}.

¶14

 been able to show from the record any material to
 support this contention.

¶15

 4. The Labour Court committed an error in allowing
 the complaint by holding that the respondents have
 engaged in unfair labour practice under Item
 Nos.1(a), (b) & (f) of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP
 Act, 1971 which was upheld by the Industrial Court.
 The said orders are challenged before the learned
 Single Judge, who on examining the record found that
 no case under Section 47 of MRTU & PULP Act has been
 made out by the appellants and, therefore, the
 conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court and upheld
 by the Industrial Court cannot be sustained. We do
 not find that the learned Single Judge has committed
 any error or illegality in dismissing the complaint
 by quashing and setting aside the impugned order.
 The learned Single Judge on the other hand directed
 the employer to pay the dues of the workmen though it
 was a case of the respondent that the dues were
 offered to the workmen, but, they refused and accept
 the retrenchment and, therefore, no fault can be
 found with the respondent employer. The learned
 Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that

¶16

 .{3}.

¶17

 as directed by the learned Single Judge they are
 again tendered the amount due and payable to the
 workmen by sending it to the appellant Union along
 with Pay-Order of the Bank, but, he has no
 instructions whether the same has been encashed or
 not. If the union refuses to accept the amount, the
 same can be deposited in the Labour Court within a
 period of two weeks from the date the bankers of the
 employers informed them that the pay-order has not
 been encashed or the appellant union, whichever is
 earlier. Letters Patent Appeal stands summarily

¶18

 dismissed.

¶19

[J.N.PATEL,J.]

¶20

[SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]

Maharashtra Employees Union v. M/S Santosh Industries and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra Employees Union v. M/S Santosh Industries 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

Krishna Dhondu Ipte and Ors. Vs M/S. Bayer India Ltd.

Ashfaque Jan Mohammed Shaikh Vs Nilofar Ashfaque Shaikh

Jayantilal Pokhrajmal Shah Vs Valiualla Samtulla Ansari and Ors.

Manohar Santu Sherkar Vs M/S. Gestetner (India) Ltd.

Haribhau N. Nikam Vs the Chairman Padmn. Vasantdada Patil High School

Rangaswamy Thangavelu Vs Administrative Officer - III Directorate of Construction, Services and Estate Management and Ors.