Remanded

The Kolhapur Municipal Transport v. Tanaji Dinkar Waskar

Bombay HC20 Dec 2010WP/448/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order of the Industrial Court which held the petitioner guilty of unfair labor practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The matter was remanded to the Industrial Court for a fresh hearing to consider Government Resolutions and settlement, with directions to decide the complaint by a specific date.

What did the court decide?

The Complaint (ULP) No.50 of 2005 was remanded to the Industrial Court, Kolhapur for a fresh hearing with a deadline of 31st October, 2011 for disposal. Parties were permitted to lead evidence and fil

The Kolhapur Municipal Transport Vs Tanaji… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

WP/448/2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.448 OF 2010

¶5

The Kolhapur Municipal Transport, Kolhapur V/s.

Tanaji Dinkar Waskar

... Petitioner

... Respondent

Mr. A.M. Adagule for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. M.S. Topkar for the Respondent.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

This Writ Petition has been preferred against the order dated 9^th October,

¶13

2009 passed by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur in a Complaint, being Complaint (ULP) No.50 of 2005, filed under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, by the respondent. It appears that the Industrial Court has held that the petitioner

¶14

has committed an unfair labour practice under the aforesaid Act and has further directed the petitioner to pay the amount mentioned in the statement filed by the respondent in Court. This amount is Rs.30,000/-.

¶15

Both the parties have filed calculations before this Court, but apparently

¶16

there is a difference of Rs.30,000/- in the calculations. It appears that certain

¶17

WP/448/2010

¶18

¶19

Government Resolutions had not been considered by the Industrial Court, nor has a settlement with the recognized Union been considered by the Industrial Court while arriving at these conclusions.

¶20

In my opinion, therefore, it would be appropriate to remand the complaint to the Industrial Court to decide it afresh.

¶21

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 9^th October, 2009 passed by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur in Complaint (ULP) No.50 of 2005 is set aside. The Complaint (ULP) No.50 of 2005 is remanded to the Industrial Court, Kolhapur for a fresh hearing.

¶22

Parties are permitted to lead evidence as also to file statements showing their respective calculations before the Industrial Court, Kolhapur.

¶23

The Complaint (ULP) No.50 of 2005 shall be disposed of by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur by 31^st October, 2011.

¶24

The Writ Petition is disposed of with aforesaid directions.

The Kolhapur Municipal Transport v. Tanaji Dinkar Waskar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Kolhapur Municipal Transport v. Tanaji Dinkar Waskar

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

Anand Keshav Marathe Vs Rajapur Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ors.

Maharashtra State Road Trnsport Corpn., Vs Ramchandra Dattatraya Nilkant.

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs Mr. Bhagwan Ganpati Kshirsagar

The Kolhapur Municipal Transport Vs Tanaji Dinkar Waskar

Rajkumar Hari Gadgil and Anr. Vs Vadgaon Saraf Vyapari Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Mydt. and Ors.

Anil Maneklal Modi Vs Yogesh K. Kapadia and Anr.