Allowed

Savita Vijaysing Rawat v. the Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd.

Bombay HC3 Jul 2012WP/2804/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court bench allowed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dismissing a settlement complaint. The Court held that the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the complaint without adjudication on merits due to the pendency of a related writ petition against the employer. The impugned order was quashed, and the complaint restored for fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and order of the Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad, dismissing Complaint (ULP) No. 42 of 2000 dated 26th March, 2008, is quashed and set aside.

Savita Vijaysing Rawat Vs the Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. — Bombay HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 wp2804.11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2804 OF 2011

¶4

Mrs. Savita w/o Vijaysing Rawat,
(Formerly known as Miss. Savita
d/o Mulkraj Sharma), Age:Major,
Occ: Service R/o. AH 1/46,
N-2, CIDCO, Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The Maharashtra Agro Industries
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Shaktisahakar Building,
Opp. ST WORKSHOP,
Aurangabad 431 001 through its
Regional Manager. ...RESPONDENT

¶7

 ...
Mr. V.N. Upadhye, Advocate for petitioner.
 ...

¶8

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J.

¶9

 DATE : 3RD JULY, 2012

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

.This writ petition takes exception to the

¶12

judgment and order passed by the Member,
Industrial Court, Aurangabad dated 26th March,
2008 in Complaint (ULP) No. 42 of 2000 filed by

¶13

the petitioner herein. By the said order, the

¶14

2 wp2804.11

¶15

complaint is dismissed by the Member, Industrial

¶16

Court, Aurangabad. The said complaint was filed
before the Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad
with following prayers:

¶17

"i) Respondent be ordered to

¶18

extend all the benefits and privileges which are extended to all other employees.

¶19

ii) It be decided that the complainant is entitled for the permanency and benefits attached thereto.

¶20

iii) The respondent be ordered to pay reasonable compensation to the complainant.

¶21

iv) Any other reliefs for which the complainant is entitled in law ."

¶22

2.It appears that, the Industrial Court

¶23

after recording the evidence and after hearing the
parties, dismissed the said complaint. It further

¶24

3 wp2804.11

¶25

appears that, the Industrial Court while deciding
said complaint, was much influenced by the
rejection of Civil Application No. 430 of 2000 in
Writ Petition No. 3762 of 1993. The observations

¶26

of the Industrial Court to that effect are found

¶27

in paragraph Nos. 15 to 19 of the judgment. In
paragraph Nos. 15 to 19, the Industrial Court has
discussed about the pending Writ Petition No. 3762

¶28

of 1993 at the relevant time. It appears that,
the Industrial Court rejected the said complaint
with observation that, the issue regarding
termination, grant of benefits to the complainant,
is pending before this Court in Writ Petition No.
3762 of 1993.

¶29

3.Upon careful perusal of paragraph Nos. 14

¶30

to 19 of the judgment of the Industrial Court, it
is abundantly clear that, there is no adjudication
of the said complaint on its merits. It appears
that, the Industrial Court was much influenced by
the rejection of the Civil Application in the Writ
Petition No. 3762 of 1993 and pendency of Writ

¶31

4 wp2804.11

¶32

Petition No. 3762 of 1993.

¶33

.This Court has heard Writ Petition
No. 3762 of 1993 finally on 16th February, 2012
and by speaking order, dismissed the writ petition
which was filed by the employer.

¶34

4. In that view of the matter, it would be

¶35

in the interest of justice and in the fitness of
things that, the Complaint (ULP) No. 42 of 2000
is restored to its original file for fresh
adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned judgment
and order dated 26th March, 2008 passed by the
Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad in Complaint
(ULP) No. 42 of 2000 is quashed and set aside.
Complaint (ULP) No. 42 of 2000 is restored to its
original file. The Member, Industrial Court,
Aurangabad is directed to hear and decide the said
complaint, as expeditiously as possible, however,
within six months from today. It is needless to
mention that, the petitioner will place on record

¶36

the certified copy of the order dated 16th

¶37

5 wp2804.11

¶38

February, 2012 passed by this Court in Writ
Petition No. 3762 of 1993. Writ Petition is
allowed to the above extent, same stands disposed

¶39

of.

¶40

 [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶41

sut/JULY12

Savita Vijaysing Rawat v. the Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savita Vijaysing Rawat v. the Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd.

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

Laxmanrao Manoharrao Dabir and Others. Vs Shivram Dhondiba and Others.

Suraj Developers Thr Partners and Ors. Vs M/S Chatrpati Motors Ltd. Thr Director and Anr.

Paramdas Zama Rathod Vs Smt. Deokabai D. Patil

Prakash Ramrao Kalyankar Vs Siddarth Pannalal Kankariya

Dnyandeo Pundlik Attarde and Ors. Vs Swarupkumar Bhagchand Lunkad

Raza Ali Shah Gulam Ali Shah Vs the Mah. State Board of Wakfs Thr Chief Executive Officer and Anr.