Remanded

M/S. Tool Centre India Pvt. Ltd. v. K.B. Mruthunjaya Acharya

Bombay HC10 Aug 2009WP/911/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition for quashing a Labour Court award directing reinstatement was allowed based on mutual consent. The matter was remanded to the Labour Court to pass a fresh order considering the recital that the workman sought settlement rather than reinstatement.

What did the court decide?

Award dated 29th September, 2008 quashed; Reference remanded to 2nd Labour Court to pass fresh order without further evidence.

M/S. Tool Centre India Pvt. Ltd. Vs K.B… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

mgj

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

Writ Petition No. 911 of 2009

¶5

M/s Tool Centre India Pvt.
Ltd.

¶6

 ..Plaintiff

¶7

vs.

¶8

K.B.Mruthunjaya Acharya ..Respondent

¶9

Mr.Mahesh A.Shukla for petitioner

¶10

Mr.R.V.Sankpal i/b R.V.Sankpal and Associates
for respondent no.1.

¶11

CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA J.
 10th August, 2009

¶12

P.C.

¶13

1Rule.

¶14

2By consent rule made returnable

¶15

forthwith. The learned Advocates appearing

¶16

for the parties are heard.

¶17

3This writ petition is filed by the

¶18

petitioner for quashing and setting aside the

¶19

impugned award dated 29th September, 2008

¶20

passed by the 2nd Labour Court, Mumbai in
Reference (IDA) No.89 of 2005. By the

¶21

¶22

impugned order the 2nd Labour Court, Mumbai

¶23

has partly allowed the reference filed by the

¶24

respondent workman and has directed the

¶25

petitioner to reinstate the workman with 25%
back wages and continuity of service i.e.

¶26

from 8th September, 2003. Attention of this
Court is drawn to the cross examination of
the workman (Annexture F page 34) wherein the

¶27

workman has categorically admitted that he
has filed the case for settlement and not for

¶28

reinstatement. It is pointed out by the
learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner
that despite this categorical admission on
the part of the workman, by the impugned

¶29

Award, reinstatement has been ordered and

¶30

there is no reference in the order about the

¶31

workman categorically stating/admitting that
he has filed the case for settlement and not
for reinstatement.

¶32

3At this stage, the learned Advocates
appearing for the petitioner as well as the

¶33

¶34

workman have agreed that the matter be
remanded to the 2nd Labour Court, Mumbai for
passing of a fresh order in Reference (IDA)
No.89 of 2005 after hearing the learned
Advocates for both the parties. In view
thereof, the following order is passed by
consent of the parties:

¶35

i)The Award dated 29th September, 2008
passed by the 2nd Labour Court, Mumbai is
quashed and set aside.

¶36

ii) The 2nd Labour Court is directed to

¶37

pass a fresh order after hearing the learned
Advocates for both the parties but without
allowing any further evidence to be led by
either of the parties and after taking into
consideration the evidence which is already

¶38

on record more particularly the case of the
workman in the cross examination that he is
seekingonlysettlementandnot

¶39

reinstatement. The parties shall appear
before the 2nd Labour Court, Mumbai on 24th

¶40

August, 2009 at 11.00 a.m.

¶41

shall after hearing them give a reasoned

¶42

Award as aforestated on or before 31st
December, 2009.

¶43

4.Petition is disposed of on the above

¶44

terms.

M/S. Tool Centre India Pvt. Ltd. v. K.B. Mruthunjaya Acharya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Tool Centre India Pvt. Ltd. v. K.B. Mruthunjaya Acharya

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

Hemanshu Desai Vs Hindustan Dorr--Oliver Ltd.

Pharmalab Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs ---------------------------------------------

Pharmalab India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ---------------------------------------------

Bajaj Processing Industries Vs Fashion Exim India Pvt. Ltd.

M.N. Reddy Enterprises Vs Elite Brands Pvt. Ltd.

M/S. Trig Guard Force Ltd. and 2 Others Vs Gopikant K. Kokare