Remanded

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Suryakant Pundlik Patil

Bombay HC25 Feb 2009WP/1836/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an Industrial Court order that declared a rejected interim relief application as allowed. The court directed the Industrial Court to decide the main complaint within four months and remanded the matter regarding the respondent's posting.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the Industrial Court set aside; Industrial Court directed to decide main complaint within four months; parties to appear on 30.03.2009.

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1836 OF 2009

¶4

 Maharashtra State Road Transport
 Corporation, Bombay ..Petitioner

¶5

 versus

¶6

 Suryakant Pundlik Patil ..Respondent

¶7

 Mr. G. S. Hegde i/b. G. S. Hegde & Associates
 for the Petitioner.

¶8

 Mr. H. M. Inamdar for the Respondent.

¶9

CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J.

¶10

DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2009

¶11

P.C.

¶12

 . Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by

¶13

 consent.

¶14

 2. The petitioner has challenged the Order of
 the Industrial Court dated 20.12.2008 as follows:

¶15

 "The Complainant is a "workman" within a
 meaning of Sec. 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947
 and "employee" within the meaning of Sec.
 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, as such,
 complaint is maintainable in law, and

¶16

:2:

¶17

 therefore, the application below Exh. U-2
 of interim relief rejected on 29.03.2008
 shall stand allowed."

¶18

 Earlier, after the Industrial Court had held that
 the respondent is not a workman and rejected the
 application for interim relief, this Court had
 merely directed that the observations contained in
 the impugned order are confined to the disposal of
 the application for interim relief and observed as
 follows:

¶19

 "....However the Industrial Court is
 requested to said down the schedule for the
 expeditious disposal of the case, preferably
 by the end of 2008. Subject to the
 aforesaid Petition is disposed of."

¶20

 Obviously, what was contemplated by this Court was
 that the Industrial Court should expeditiously
 dispose of the case itself, viz. the complaint.
 There was no reason for the Industrial Court to
 consider the application for interim relief and that
 too in the manner it has done. The application for
 interim relief had already been rejected. The
 Industrial Court could not have declared that the

¶21

:3:

¶22

 application already rejected shall stand allowed.
 Such an order is not warranted by any procedure
 established in law. The impugned order is therefore
 set aside. As ordered earlier, the Industrial Court
 shall decide the main complaint not later than four
 months after the parties before it. The parties are
 directed to appear before the Industrial Court on
 30.3.2009.

¶23

 3. The following part of this Order is passed
 by consent and without prejudice to the rights of
 either party:

¶24

 The respondent shall make a representation

¶25

 to the petitioner for a fresh posting at a
 suitable place. The petitioner shall
 consider giving a posting to the respondent
 as far as possible near the respondent’s
 present place of posting. The petitioner
 shall take a decision on the respondent’s
 representation within four weeks of

¶26

 receiving it. Order accordingly.

¶27

 4. Rule made absolute in the above terms.

¶28

:4:

¶29

 (S. A. BOBDE, J.)

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Suryakant Pundlik Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Suryakant Pundlik Patil

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

The President - Jay Bharat Shikshan Sanstha and Anr. Vs Vitthal Shivdas Bhojane and Ors.

Rajendra Kamlakar Vs Union of India

Vishnu R. Sarwade Vs Pune University and Ors.

Shri Shreedatt a Sardesai Vs Celetron India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Shri Pralhad Rambhau Kahar Vs Celetron India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Business Combine Ltd. Vs B.T. Jagtap and Ors.