Dismissed

Asanghathit Kamgar Andalon and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Sept 2009WP/1592/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged a notification fixing minimum wages, arguing lack of prior objection opportunity. The Court held that since the petitioner failed to raise objections before the authority and offered no explanation, entertaining the petition was not a proper exercise of jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.

Asanghathit Kamgar Andalon and Ors. Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1592 OF 1999

¶5

Asanghathit Kamgar Andalon and
others...Petitioners

¶6

v/s

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents

¶8

Mr.S.K.Singhvi with Ms.Jove Cox for the
Petitioners.
Ms.Madhubala Kajale, AGP for the State.
Mr.S.C.Pal for the Union of India.

¶9

CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, &
 R.G.KETKAR, JJ
DATED: 15th September, 2009

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1.By this petition the Petitioners

¶12

challenge the notification dated 22nd July,
1998 fixing the minimus wages under the

¶13

Minimum Wages Act purported to have been
issued in exercise of the power conferred by

¶14

¶15

clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3

¶16

read with sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the

¶17

Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (IX of 1948). So far
as the Petitioner No.1 is concerned, it is
unregistered body comprising of various
registered trade-unions. Though it is not
registered under any Act, it claims to be the
association of the registered Trade-Unions.
In our opinion, as the Petitioner No.1 is not
a person in the eye of law, therefore the
Petition filed by Petitioner No.1 cannot be
entertained. So far as Petitioners Nos.2, 3 &
4 are concerned, they are Trade Unions
registered under the Trade Union Act.

¶18

2. The learned Counsel appearing for
the Petitioners Nos.2, 3 and 4 states that
the Petitioners has not raised objections,
which were called for by the Authorities,
before issuing the notification.

¶19

¶20

2.In our opinion, the object of the

¶21

requirement of inviting the objections to the
proposed action is that the persons who are
likely to be affected by the notification can

¶22

get an opportunity to put forth their point

¶23

of view before the Authority and the
authority gets an opportunity to consider the
point of view of the persons in relation to
whom the action is proposed to be taken.
The Petitioners before challenging the action
in a petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India either have to raise an
objection or have to explain what prevented
them from raising the objections. In our

¶24

opinion, entertaining a petition at the
instance of the Petitioners who do not raise

¶25

any objection before the authority and also
give no explanation in the petition as to why
the objection was not raised, will not be

¶26

¶27

proper exercise of the extra ordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. Petition,
therefore, fails and is dismissed. Rule
discharged. No order as to costs.

Asanghathit Kamgar Andalon and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asanghathit Kamgar Andalon and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Chetan Prakash Thakur Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Poonam Courier and Transport Pvt.Ltd. Vs Thye Internation Airport Authority of India

Shivram N.Shetty Vs Mhada and Ors.

Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs the Deputy Director Fruit and Vegetable Preservation and Anr.

Aspi E.Tata and Ors. Vs Ward Office 'D' Ward and Ors.

Mahesh P. Dange Vs Gas Authority of India Ltd.