Dismissed

Marathwada Sarvashramik Sanghatana Thro.v.Presiden v. the State of Maharashtra and Others.

Bombay HC21 Jul 2009WP/1220/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging termination of daily rated employees was dismissed as the applicants had already approached the Labour/Industrial courts which possess proper jurisdiction over service disputes. The High Court declined to interfere citing the existence of an alternative competent forum.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with no order as to costs and rule discharged.

Marathwada Sarvashramik Sanghatana Thro.v.Presiden Vs… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1220 OF 1994

¶4

Marathwada Sarva Shramik Sanghatana Through its Vice-President Shri. Harishchandra Shankarrao Sonwane, Age-Major, Occu-Social Worker, Branch Office Trade Union Centre, Nanded PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, (Through G.P. High Court, Bench at Aurangabad.)

¶7

Secretary,

¶8

Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Bombay-32

¶9

Divisional Manager, Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra, Division Office at Kinwat, District Nanded.

¶10

Range Forest Officer,

¶11

Shivani, Tq.Kinwat, Dist : Nanded,

¶12

Forestor,

¶13

Range Office, Jaldhara, Taluka Kinwat, Dist.Nanded.

¶14

Forest Guard, Range Office,

¶15

Jaldhara, Tq.Kinwat, Dist.Nanded

¶16

RESPONDENTS

¶17

¶18

Mr.S.K.Shelke, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr.V.B.Ghadge, learned AGP for respondent no.1 and 2

¶19

(CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.)

¶20

DATE : 21/07/2009

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT : ( Per P.V.Hardas, J.)

¶22

This petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 11/03/1994, 19/03/1994 and 25/03/1994 terminating the services as Watchman or changing the nature of work and reducing daily wanges of the employees shown at Exh.A to the petition. The petitioner appears is a Union who is espoused of a cause, whose names are disclosed at Exh.A to the petition.

¶23

First and foremost, the petitioner ought to have approach the Labour or Industrial Court which have necessary jurisdiction in respect of the reliefs which the petitioner has sought for in this petition. Perusal of the affidavit in reply of the respondents at para no.6 discloses that the employees who were daily rated employees, whose cause is espoused by the petitioner, had filed complaints before the Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad which stands transferred to the Industrial Court at Jalna. In the light of the fact that the employees whose cause is espoused by the petitioner union

¶24

¶25

in this petition, have already approached the competent forum, we decline to interfere in this writ petition. Accordingly this petition which sans merit is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.

¶26

(A.V.POTDAR, J.)

¶27

(P.V.HARDAS, J.)

¶28

khs/JULY 2009/wp1220-94

Marathwada Sarvashramik Sanghatana Thro.v.Presiden v. the State of Maharashtra and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marathwada Sarvashramik Sanghatana Thro.v.Presiden v. the State of Maharashtra and Others.

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

Smt.Sonabai Late Haribhau Gaikwad. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others.

Vinayak Kacharu Andhale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

S M Solar Products Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner Employees Provident Fund

Usha Narayan Patil. Vs Block Devt.Officer,Panchayat Samiti,Jalgaon and Ors.

Sarswatibhawan Shikshan Sanstha a'Bad and Others. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others.

Pradeep Chandaji Wanjare. Vs the State of Mah. and Others.