Dismissed

Laxman Kisan Kadam and Ors. v. M/S N Cube Specialty Forging Pvt. Ltd. Thr Manager

Bombay HC13 Dec 2012WP/8919/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the Industrial Court's rejection of an application for injunction under the MRTPU and PULP Act. The Court held that a prima facie case requires evidence from both parties before interference under Article 227. The petition was dismissed, and the status quo was continued for four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs; status quo continued for four weeks.

Laxman Kisan Kadam and Ors. Vs M/S N Cube Specialty… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 wp 8919.12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 8919 OF 2012

¶4

Laxman Kisan Kadam and others .. Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s N. Cube Speciality Forging Pvt. Ltd through Manager. .. Respondent

¶7

Shri N. V. Gaware, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri A. R. Joshi, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 13TH DECEMBER, 2012.

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

. The petitioners had filed complaint ULP under the provisions of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act. Along with complaint filed an application Exhibit U-2 thereby seeking injunction restraining the respondent from changing the service conditions or terminating services. Said application is rejected. The petitioners filed an application for review. Said review application is also rejected. Aggrieved thereby present petition.

¶11

2 wp 8919.12

¶12

Shri Gaware, the learned counsel submits that, the Industrial Court while passing the impugned order failed to consider the documents placed on record and without considering the documents placed on record has rejected the application. Some of the documents were subsequently gathered by petitioners and were filed along with review application. At that time also said documents were not considered. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners had prima facie shown that they are the employees of the present respondent in view of the bank statement and pay slips which were filed on record. The agreement with Bhagyashree Enterprises entered into by the respondent was never renewed in the year 2012 and a letter from the competent authority is also placed on record, which specifically shows that the agreement has not been renewed. The learned counsel submits that if the petitioners are not protected, the respondent would terminate the services of the petitioners and the petitioners would suffer starvation. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Indo-European Brewaries Ltd. Vs. Dnyaneshwar Shyamrao Dhanwante and others reported in 2011(Supp.) Bom. C. R. 949 .

¶13

3 wp 8919.12

¶14

Shri Joshi, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that, when the relationship of employer and employee is disputed, the said complaint is not maintainable before the Industrial Court under the provisions of the M.R.T.U and P.U.L.P. Act. For the said purpose the learned counsel relies on the following judgments of the Apex Court.

¶15

i) Vividh Kamgar Sabha Vs. Kalyani Seteels Ltd. and another reported in AIR 2001 S.C. 1534.

¶16

ii) Cipla Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and others reported in AIR 2001 S.C. 1165.

¶17

iii) Sarva Shramik Sangh Vs. M/s Indian Smelting and Refining Co. Ltd. and others reported in AIR 2004

¶18

S.C. 269.

¶19

The learned counsel submits that the attendance and wage register has been produced on record of July 2012 which shows that the petitioners are employees of the Bhagyashree Enterprises.

¶20

The Industrial Court has observed that a strong prima facie case is required to be made out by the petitioners for grant

¶21

4 wp 8919.12

¶22

of relief under Exhibit U-2. The present respondent has disputed the relationship of employer and employee. There are rival documents placed on record. The Industrial Court will have to come to a conclusion about the genuineness of the claims of either party. The same can only be concluded after the parties have adduced the evidence. The Industrial Court will also have to adjudicate the maintainability of complaint in the light of defences raised by the present respondent. All these aspects are required to be considered by the Industrial Court. Eventually, if the Industrial Court comes to the conclusion that the complaint is maintainable and during the pendency of complaint if there is change in service conditions, then the same can be subject to decision of the said complaint.

¶23

In the light of the above, I do not see any reason to exercise my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As such, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.

¶24

The Industrial Court shall expeditiously dispose of the complaint, preferably within a period of six months.

¶25

5 wp 8919.12

¶26

At this stage, Shri Gaware, the learned counsel for petitioners states that, status quo granted by this Court be continued for further period of eight weeks. Shri Joshi, the learned counsel opposes the said request, however, taking into account the fact that the status quo was in operation, the said order of status quo granted is continued further for a period of four (4) weeks. Needless to state on lapse of four (4) weeks, the status quo order shall come to an end.

¶27

[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶28

bsb/Dec. 12

Laxman Kisan Kadam and Ors. v. M/S N Cube Specialty Forging Pvt. Ltd. Thr Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Kisan Kadam and Ors. v. M/S N Cube Specialty Forging Pvt. Ltd. Thr Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vithal Tukaram Kokare. Vs the State of Mah.and Another.

Municipal Council, Paranda Vs Liyakatkhan Hayatkha Pathan and Ors.

Varsha Deepak Bhat Vs the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Amalner and Ors.

Gurudatta Womens Self Help Group through Its Chairman K.D.Marathe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The State of Mah and Ors. Vs Babaji Mahadeo Raul

Fazal Khaza Shaikh Vs Anjali Tanaji Bhosale and Ors.