Remanded

The Kolhapur Municipal Transport v. Tanaji Dinkar Waskar

Bombay HC20 Dec 2010WP/448/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Petitioner challenged an order by the Industrial Court holding it guilty of unfair labour practice and directing payment of Rs.30,000. The Court found that the Industrial Court failed to consider relevant Government Resolutions and a settlement. Consequently, the order was set aside and the complaint remanded for a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 9th October, 2009 set aside; complaint remanded to Industrial Court, Kolhapur for fresh hearing.

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

CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 20TH DECEMBER, 2010.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

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

¶14

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 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

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

The Kolhapur Municipal Transport Vs Tanaji Dinkar Waskar

Anil Maneklal Modi Vs Yogesh K. Kapadia and Anr.