Allowed

The Hoticultural Deputy Director,Ratnagiri and Anr. v. Narayan Govind Antarkar

Bombay HC1 Aug 2013LPA/222/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a single judge who dismissed a writ petition due to non-implementation of an Industrial Court order, the High Court held that non-compliance could not bar consideration on merits. The appeal was allowed, the order remanded to the single judge for hearing on merits, and the civil application was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to the learned single judge to hear the writ petition on merits; civil application disposed of.

The Hoticultural Deputy Director,Ratnagiri and Anr. Vs… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

LPA222.12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.222 OF 2012

¶7

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.4086 OF 1999

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Appellants V/s. Shri Narayan Govind Antarkar ....Respondent

¶10

Mr.A.B.Vagyani AGP for the appellants.

¶11

CORAM : V.M.KANADE & K.R.SHRIRAM,JJ

¶12

DATE : 1^st August, 2013.

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

1 Heard the learned AGP for the State. None for the respondent.

¶15

2 The appellants have filed affidavit of service. The appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge dated 9.12.2010 in Writ petition No.4086 of 1999 have filed the present appeal. The appellants are the original petitioners and they filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court in complaint ULP No.226 of 1989. By the said order, the Industrial Court has held that the appellants/petitioners had

¶16

2 LPA222.12

¶17

committed unfair labour practices under items 6 and 9 of ScheduleIV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 and further directed the petitioners to confer the status and privileges of permanency on the 102 workmen whose names were listed in the annexure to the complaint from the date each of them completed five years of continuous service. It is submitted that the said petition was dismissed only on the ground that the petitioners had not executed the order passed by the Industrial Court in complaint ULP No.226 of 1989. It is submitted that the said Writ petition could not have been dismissed on that ground.

¶18

3 We have perused the impugned order. The learned single Judge in paragraph-2 has given the following reasons for dismissing the Writ petition :-

¶19

“The petition was admitted on 26^th July, 1999. Rule on interim relief was issued on that day. On 3^rd July, 2000, when the matter came up for interim relief, ad-interim relief was refused. No steps were taken by the petitioners to have the impugned order stayed after the Petition was admitted in 1999. Thus, the impugned order, in fact, was required to be implemented by the petitioners. Admittedly, this has not been done by the petitioners.”

¶20

4 In our view, merely because the order passed by the Industrial Court was not complied, the learned single Judge could not

¶21

3 LPA222.12

¶22

have refused to consider the writ petition on merits. The said order therefore, required to be set aside and the matter will have to be remanded back to the learned single Judge so that the writ petition can be heard on merits. Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. Matter is remanded back to the learned single Judge.

¶23

5 Civil Application does not survive and disposed of accordingly.

¶24

(K.R.SHRIRAM,J)

¶25

(V.M.KANADE,J)

The Hoticultural Deputy Director,Ratnagiri and Anr. v. Narayan Govind Antarkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Hoticultural Deputy Director,Ratnagiri and Anr. v. Narayan Govind Antarkar

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

Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. Vs the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. Vs the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Times Global Broadcasting Co. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Parshuram Babaram Sawant

Smt. Shraddha Vinod Deo Vs the State of Maharashtra , through Principal Secretary

Priyanka B Alasaheb Rathod alias Priyanka Ramkisan Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Rural Development Dept., and Ors.

Amrishchandra Agarwal Vs Anthony John Pereira and Ors.