Dismissed

Mahapalika Arogya Seva Karmachari Sanghatana v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Jun 2011WP/3764/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Bombay High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to an interim relief order passed by the Industrial Court. The Court held that granting the interim relief sought was barred as the prayer for restraining retirement was absent from the main complaint, and enforcing it would amount to adjudicating the merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned order was left undisturbed.

Mahapalika Arogya Seva Karmachari Sanghatana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2011)

12 wp 3764.11.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3764 OF 2011

¶6

Mahapalika Arogya Seva Karmachari Sangathan,

¶7

..Petitioner.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr.

¶10

..Respondents.

¶11

Mr. P.S. Devdas for petitioner. Mr. S.S.Pokale i/b Mr. M.M. Malvankar for respondent no.1.

¶12

CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATED : 21/06/2011.

¶13

PC :

¶14

1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

2 By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is challenging the order dated 24^th February, 2011 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai, below Exhibit U-2 in Complaint (ULP) No.291 of 2010.

¶16

12 wp 3764.11.doc

¶17

¶18

3 A few facts of the matter are as under:

¶19

The Petitioner-original complainant filed Complaint (ULP) No. 219 of 2010 before the Industrial Court, Mumbai in Item 9 of Schedule IV of M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P Act, 1971 for following reliefs:

¶20

“1. It may be declared that the respondents have engaged in Unfair Labour Practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act 1971.

¶21

Direct the respondents to cease and desist from engaging in unfair labour practice complained herein.

¶22

To direct the respondents to reinstate Women Health Workers (CHVs) who have been retired on attaining the age of 55 years and continue to employ them with full back wages, continuity of service and consequential benefits.

¶23

Any other orders/directions which may be deemed fit be granted.

¶24

5. Award costs.”

¶25

4 The Complainant - Petitioner preferred an application for interim relief under section 30 (2) of the M.R.T.U. And P.U.L.P Act, 1971 with following reliefs.

¶26

12 wp 3764.11.doc

¶27

¶28

“Pending the hearing and final disposal of the complaint the Opponents be directed by interim orders

¶29

(a) Not to discontinue or retire Women Health Workers (CHVs) on the attaining the age of 55 years and not to appoint any other person/s in place of Women Health Workers (CHVs) who have been retired at the age of 55 years.

¶30

(a) The Women Health Workers (CHVs) be directed to continue in the employment of the Corporation.

¶31

(b) Any other orders or relief which may be deemed fit be granted.

¶32

¶33

5 It is crystal clear on reading the prayers in the main Complaint and interim Application that both the prayers are altogether different. In the main Application, the Petitioner has not prayed for restraining the Respondents from retiring the Women Health Workers on attaining the age of 55 years. As the prayer in the interim Application is not prayed in the main Complaint, there is no question of granting any interim relief to the Petitioner. Apart from that the Labour Court has considered the Petitioner’s prayer and held that if the Petitioner’s Application is allowed it would amount to deciding the main

¶34

12 wp 3764.11.doc

¶35

¶36

Complaint itself. These observations are made by the Labour Court in para 8 of the impugned order.

¶37

6 Considering these facts, I do not find any substance in the present writ petition. Writ Petition stands dismissed.

Mahapalika Arogya Seva Karmachari Sanghatana v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahapalika Arogya Seva Karmachari Sanghatana v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 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

Maharashtra Stae Road Transport Corporation Vs Rajya Parivahan Nivrutta Karmachari Sanghatana Maharashtra

Khalil Hafijji Mo. Shaban and Anr. Vs Candulal Chindha Jadhav

Writer Safegaurd Pvt. Ltd., Vs Regional Provident Fund and Ors.

Mohmad Iqbal and Ors. Vs Patel Engineering Works and Ors.

The Principal General Manager, B.S.N.L. Vs G.B. Khetade and Anr.

Suresh Govind Dhokale and Ors. Vs Kirloskar Ebara Pumps Ltd.