Dismissed

Sfs Education Societys St Xaviers High School Aurangabad through Fr Walter Daigo Gonsalvis v. Benjamin Joy

Bombay HC7 Mar 2011WP/1575/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an Industrial Court order awarding unpaid salary and permanency benefits, this Court rejected the petitioner's claim that it was deprived of opportunity to defend itself and that relevant parties were not joined, dismissing the petition as no jurisdictional error was found.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; No costs.

Sfs Education Societys St Xaviers High School… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

WP 1575/2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1575 OF 2011

¶5

SFS Education Society's St. Xavier's High School, N-1, 153, Cidco, Aurangabad. Through : Fr. Walter Daigo Gonsalvis. ....Petitioner.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shri. Benjamin s/o. Joy, R/o. N-7, C-2/64, Cidco, Aurangabad. ....Respondent.

¶8

Mr. Thole Y. I., Advocate for petitioner.

¶9

CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶10

DATED: 7th March, 2011.

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

Respondent filed ULP complaint, pointing out that he was paid incomplete salary and he was also deprived of benefit of permanency. He entered the witness box, lead oral evidence and he also sought production of some documents and those documents have been produced by the petitioner. It is not in dispute that those documents show receipt of incomplete salary by him. Industrial Court on the basis of his evidence, directed petitioner to pay him balance amount and also

¶13

WP 1575/2011

¶14

¶15

to grant him benefit of permanency.

¶16

Shri. Thole, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has raised two contentions. First, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to lead its defence before Industrial Court in relation to documents filed by it in the Court. In the alternative, he also states that petitioner has got atleast three schools in Aurangabad town and specific school in which respondent was working or then its Headmaster were not joined as respondents.

¶17

The Industrial Court has accepted story of deduction from salary of respondent after accepting oral evidence. Respondent/complainant was cross examined by petitioner. Documents produced by petitioner / employer revealed that there were deductions from salary of respondent and those deductions were not in accordance with law. Thus, the documents produced by petitioner, are used against it by Industrial Court. As the documents were produced by the petitioner, it was not necessary for the respondent/complainant to prove its contents. He deposed in support of his contention of unauthorized deductions and employer got opportunity to cross examine. I therefore do not find any substance in the submission that petitioner was not given necessary opportunity by Industrial Court or then that contents of those documents are not proved.

¶18

WP 1575/2011

¶19

¶20

Similarly documents relevant for adjudication before Industrial Court were produced by petitioner. The petitioner cross examined complainant and then did not plead before Industrial Court any prejudice because concerned Headmaster was not joined as a party. Similarly, material sufficient to infer any prejudice could have been brought on record in cross examination of respondent. But that has not been done.

¶21

The Industrial Court gave opportunity to petitioner to enter in witness box. But that was not used.

¶22

In view of this, it is apparent that grievance of not joining the relevant school/Headmaster as party before Industrial Court being made before this Court is by way of afterthought and cannot be accepted.

¶23

As I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity, petition is rejected. No costs.

¶24

[ B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.]

¶25

ssc/wp1575.11

Sfs Education Societys St Xaviers High School Aurangabad through Fr Walter Daigo Gonsalvis v. Benjamin Joy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sfs Education Societys St Xaviers High School Aurangabad through Fr Walter Daigo Gonsalvis v. Benjamin Joy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopichand Bhika Choudhari and Ors. Vs Tukaram Bhika Choudhari

Kisan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Udgir and Anr. Vs Nageshkumar Sadhurao Salunke and Anr.

Sudhakar Tulshirma Kamble Vs the Commissioner Municipal Corporation Aurangabad and Anr.

Namdeo Ramchandra Kadu Patil Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Ramrao Dagdu Gavande Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

P Tirupati Ramchandrayya Vs Madhavrao Ganpatrao Deshpande and Anr.