Disposed

Mr. Ashok Shinde and Ors. v. Mr. K. v J. Roa and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Aug 2012CAL/209/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses the availability of premises by AIR India for Trade Union elections. The Court directed AIR India to provide the premises within twelve weeks, dismissing apprehensions of disturbance and ordering joint inspection.

What did the court decide?

Directed AIR India to provide premises for Trade Union elections within twelve weeks, with joint inspection allowed.

Mr. Ashok Shinde and Ors. Vs Mr. K. v. J. Roa and Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

LPA. 154-12, CAL. 209-12

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 154 OF 2012

¶5

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 4253 OF 2012

¶7

WITH

¶8

CIVIL APPLICATION No. 209 OF 2012

¶9

Mr. Ashok Sinde & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs. Mr. K. V. J. Rao & Ors. ... Respondents ***

¶10

Mr. K. P. Anilkumar, for the Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Ashok Shetty a/w Ms. Rita Joshi, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶12

Mr. V. B. Thadani, AGP for the State.

¶13

Ms. Kavita Anchan i/b M. V. Kini & Co. for Respondent No. 7.

¶14

¶15

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & A. R. JOSHI, JJ.

¶16

DATE : APRIL 8, 2015 PC.

¶17

. The Registrar of Trade Unions has informed that since

¶18

the AIR India is not providing the premises for conducting the elections, he was not in a position to prepare the election schedule and conduct elections. We are informed that in the past elections were

¶19

held in the said premises. Learned counsel appearing for the AIR India submits that since members of both the Union belong to different

¶20

1 / 2

¶21

LPA. 154-12, CAL. 209-12

¶22

parties, they are likely to create disturbance in the said area, therefore, permission was not granted. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – Union submits that the said premises are situated at least 3 Kms. away from the airport, therefore, apprehension expressed by the AIR India is misconceived. In our view, since in the past elections were held in the premises, we direct the AIR India to make available the said premises to the Registrar of the Trade Unions to hold elections. Elections to be held within twelve weeks. AIR India shall cooperate so that they can take instructions from the Registrar of Trade Unions. However, inspection of the premises shall be taken in presence of both – the trade unions and the Registrar. No further extension shall be granted. Civil application is accordingly

¶23

disposed of.

¶24

Vinayak Halemath

¶25

2 / 2

Mr. Ashok Shinde and Ors. v. Mr. K. v J. Roa and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Ashok Shinde and Ors. v. Mr. K. v J. Roa and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Sadhana Andhalkar Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Anahita Pandole Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors. and Johnny Joseph and Anr.

Dr. Anahita Pandole Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Reynold Shirting Ltd. Vs Nahid Hafeez Qureshi Patrawala

Mohinder Kaur Kochar, Vs Mayfair Housing Private Ltd.

Mr. Ashok Shinde and Ors. Vs Mr. K. v. J. Roa and Ors.