Dismissed

Managing Director, Yashawantrao Mohite Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., v. Vijay Shrirang Chavan and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Apr 2011WP/2169/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Labour Court's order accepting a guilty plea by an unauthorised advocate and the Industrial Court's dismissal of a subsequent belated appeal. The Bench held there was no merit in interfering with the reasoned orders of the lower courts.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed and the rule is discharged. The orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court stand.

Managing Director, Yashawantrao Mohite Krishna… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2011)

wp-2169-10.doc

Ladda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 2169 of 2010.

¶7

Yesshwantrao Mohite Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited.

¶8

... Petitioner.

¶9

Versus

¶10

The Vijay Shrirang Chavan & others

¶11

...Respondents.

¶12

Mr M.S. Topkar with Shri A.M. Khandeparkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶13

Mr S.S. Pathak, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mrs P.P.Bhosale, A.P.P. for the State.

¶14

CORAM: A.R.JOSHI, J.

¶15

DATED:- 27^th April, 2011.

¶16

P.C.

¶17

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

¶18

Heard rival submissions at length. The petitioner is challenging the validity and propriety of the order passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court.

¶19

In order to have proper perspective of the rival arguments as to

¶20

the point in controversy certain factual position in nutshell is required to

¶21

be narrated.

¶22

In the year 1998 a complaint was lodged by Inspector under

¶23

2 wp-2169-10.doc

¶24

Ladda

¶25

Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act 1969 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Mathadi Act” against the original accused nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the present Petitioners being M/s Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Rethre Budruk, Post Shivnagar, Taluka Karad, District Satara. Offence lodged against the accused was clause 43 of the Scheme read with Setion 17-A and 17-B of the Act. The scheme is known by Satara Mathadi Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1991. During the pendency of said complaint on 13.9.2007 Advocate on record representing the accused persons pleaded guilty and as per the procedure of summons triable cases, as contemplated by Chapter XXI of Criminal Procedure Code action was taken by the concerned Labour Court in the said complaint accepting the plea of guilty tendered by Advocate on record on behalf of the accused persons. On such plea of guilt conviction for the offence punishable under Clause 14 of Satara Mathadi Workers Scheme mentioned above, was passed and only sentence of imposing fine of Rs. 500/- each was awarded in default S.I.for one month. Reportedly, entire fine amount was deposited on the same day and as such said complaint was put to an end. This happened on 13^th September, 2007. Thereafter, an appeal was belatedly filed, after about 17 months, filed on

¶26

3 wp-2169-10.doc

¶27

Ladda

¶28

29.2.2009. Admittedly, the period for filing the appeal was only 30 days. Said appeal was filed by the present petitioner challenging the conviction on plea of guilty on various grounds, including no authority given to lawyer to plead guilty and that non application of any of the provisions of the Act to accused No.1 Sakhar Karkhana. Said appeal was preferred before the learned Member, Industrial Court at Satara and by detail order, running in 20 pages, said appeal was dismissed on 20^th November, 2009. Relevant provisions of the Act and all the contentions raised by the present petitioner were dealt with in detail, specifically the explanation is given by the Appellate Court in para 23 of the said impugned judgment.

¶29

During the arguments, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that it is not a question of payment of Rs.1,000/- which is the fine amount. However, it is a question that such act of pleading guilty through the lawyer who was not apparently authorized to plead guilty, would come in the way of the present petitioner when it is the stand taken by the petitioner that provisions of the Act are not applicable to the establishment of the present petitioner. Needless to mention that there cannot be any estoppel against the law. However, it is always open for the present petitioner to take appropriate defence as and when the need arise objecting the applicability of the provisions of

¶30

4 wp-2169-10.doc

¶31

Ladda

¶32

the said Act to their establishment and in that event in the criminal complaint in this matter the guilt under the offence charged is accepted by way of pleading guilty is immaterial.

¶33

Considering the reasoned order given by the Industrial Court, in the opinion of this Court, there is nothing to interfere in the writ jurisdiction so as to quash and set aside both the orders of Labour and Industrial Court and in that event there is no merit in the present petition and same is accordingly disposed of with the following order.

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

Writ petition stands dismissed.

¶36

Rule is discharged accordingly.

¶37

(A.R.JOSHI, J.)

Managing Director, Yashawantrao Mohite Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., v. Vijay Shrirang Chavan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Managing Director, Yashawantrao Mohite Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., v. Vijay Shrirang Chavan and Anr.

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

Rohitkumar Shriparameshwar Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mrs. Agnes Ruddy Odhoch Vs Union of India and Anr.

Ajay Ramkumar Agarwal and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Raju @ Shendi Bhishan Tak Vs the Principal Secretary of Home Department and Ors.

Ajit Narayan Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shiney Suraj Ahuja Vs the State of Maharashtra