Disposed

Airports Authority of India v. Maharshtra of General Kamgar Mahasangh and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC28 Sept 2010NMW/21/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a Notice of Motion where the petitioner sought to deposit dues to workmen in Court. The judge allowed payment directly by the petitioner upon identification of workmen by the union secretary to avoid inconvenience to workers and burden on the Court.

What did the court decide?

Union secretary to identify workmen; petitioner to disburse payments upon such identification at the pay office.

Airports Authority of India Vs Maharshtra of General… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

jpc/-

¶3

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

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 21 OF 2010 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 711 OF 2007

¶6

Airports Authority of India

¶7

.. Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Maharashtra General Kamgar Mahasangh and others

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

Mr. J. P Cama, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Ajay Khaire i/by the Law Point for the Petitioner

¶12

Mr. N. M. Ganguli for the Respondent

¶13

CORAM : S. J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 28th September, 2010

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1. By this Notice of Motion, the Petitioners have sought permission to deposit in this Court the amount payable to the concerned workmen as per the order dated 6th February, 2007 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, in Reference CGIT No.1/58 of 2003.

¶16

2. The Petitioners in paragraph 2 of the Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion have set out in detail the difficulties encountered by them at the time of disbursing the monthly payments to the workmen. It appears that the difficulty pertains to identification of the workmen who according to the Petitioner are the workmen of the contractor.

¶17

¶18

3. Mr. Ganguli, the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent No.1 Union, states that if the amounts are deposited in Court, the workmen will have to attend the office of the Court every month to collect their dues thereby causing grave inconvenience to them. In my view Mr. Ganguli is correct in his submission. Apart from the inconvenience that would be caused to the workmen, the office of this Court which is already overburdened with work cannot be saddled with additional responsibility of verifying the identity of the workmen and thereafter disburse their salary from the amount deposited by the Petitioner.

¶19

4. Mr. Ganguli has therefore suggested that the Secretary of the Respondent No.1 Union shall identify the workmen who are eligible to receive their monthly dues from the Petitioners.

¶20

5. In view thereof, the Secretary of the Respondent No.1 Union shall attend the Pay Office of the Petitioners on the date fixed for payment and the Petitioners shall disburse payments to the workmen only upon them being identified by the Secretary of the Respondent No.1 Union.

¶21

6. Notice of Motion is accordingly disposed of.

¶22

(S. J. KATHAWALLA, J.)

Airports Authority of India v. Maharshtra of General Kamgar Mahasangh and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Airports Authority of India v. Maharshtra of General Kamgar Mahasangh and 2 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

Gurunath Kashinath Vaidya Vs the Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Cine Costume Make Up Artists and Hair Dressers Association and Anr. Vs Smt. Sarita Dashrath Salvi Andors.

M/S. Hotel Uma Palace, Vs the State of Maharashtra

m/s mysore cement pipes Vs m/s tapi prestressed products limited

Airports Authority of India Vs Maharashtra General Kamgar Mahasangh and Ors. and Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.

Ganesh Mfg.Co Vs Kamlakar Chintaman Wanarkar and 1 Ors.