Dismissed

M/S. Anthea Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Association of Chemical Workers and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Feb 2013LPA/302/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Industrial Court's conclusion was a possible view and warranted no interference. Dismissing the appellate claim, the Court mandated deposit of arrears as a condition to stay the impugned decision for four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Stay of the operative order granted subject to deposit of arrears within one week.

M/S. Anthea Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Association of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

LPA.302.2012.22.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 302 OF 2012 IN CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10772 OF 2012

¶4

M/S. ANTHEA AROMATICS PVT. LTD. :- APPELLANT VERSUS M/S. ASSOCIATION OF CHEMICAL WORKERS AND ANR. :- RESPONDENTS

¶5

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 483 OF 2012

¶6

IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 302 OF 2012

¶7

Mr. A. D. Shetty, with Ms. Rita K. Joshi, for the Appellant.

¶8

Ms. N. D. Buch, with Mr. S. K. More, for the Respondents.

¶9

CORAM :- A.M.KHANWILKAR & K.K.TATED,JJ. DATED :- FEBRUARY 20, 2013

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

Heard Counsel for the parties.

¶12

This Appeal takes exception to the decision of the

¶13

Judgment of the Learned Single Judge dated 19^th November, 2012

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

J.V.Salunke,PA

¶16

LPA.302.2012.22.doc

¶17

in Civil Writ Petition No. 10772 of 2012. The principal argument of the Appellant is that the conclusion reached by the Learned Single Judge, in upholding the decision of the Industrial Court, is founded on error apparent on the face of record. The argument proceeds that the Learned Single Judge has failed to consider the grievance of the Appellant that the Industrial Court had committed error apparent on the face of the record with regard to the finding that Mr. Phaphadia was witness to the incident. No doubt, the Appellant may be justified in pointing out from the evidence that Phaphadia was not present at the relevant time, when the incident took place and therefore, could not be cited as witness. But, that is not the sole basis on which the conclusion has been reached by the Industrial Court.

¶18

The Industrial Court has also noted that the Appellant failed to examine Munna Singh. It has come in the evidence that Munna Singh wrote complaint as per the dictation of witness Joginder Singh Ghai. However, Munna Singh has not been examined for the reasons best known to the Management. In this backdrop, the Industrial Court proceeded to hold that the evidence

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

J.V.Salunke,PA

¶21

LPA.302.2012.22.doc

¶22

of Dina Nath, examined by the Management, was not corroborated at all. Once that evidence becomes shaky because of the fact of non examination of vital eye witness, the conclusion reached by the Industrial Court cannot be doubted as improper, much less perverse, which alone can be ground for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court.

¶23

The loose observation made by the Learned Single Judge in Paragraph 8 of the Judgment by itself cannot be ground for admitting the Appeal, especially when we are satisfied that the conclusion reached by the Industrial Court, which to say the least, is a possible view taken by the Court. Hence, no interference is warranted. The Appeal deserves to be dismissed, as no other contention is raised in this Appeal before us. Ordered accordingly.

¶24

At this stage, Counsel for the Appellant submits that the operation of the impugned decision be stayed to enable the Appellant to carry the matter in Appeal. This request is opposed by the Respondent. In our opinion, no interim relief is warranted unless the Appellant was to deposit the amount towards arrears, as

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

J.V.Salunke,PA

¶27

LPA.302.2012.22.doc

¶28

has been ordered in the impugned decision. That amount be deposited within one week from today. Only upon such deposit, the operative order shall remain in abeyance for a period of four weeks from today.

¶29

Respondent would be free to apply for withdrawing the amount, after the amount is deposited in the Registry, by the Appellant.

¶30

(K.K.TATED,J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.)

¶31

Page 4 of 4

¶32

J.V.Salunke,PA

M/S. Anthea Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Association of Chemical Workers and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Anthea Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Association of Chemical Workers 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

Dhondewadi Vivid Karyakari Seva Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Dhondewadi and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shivaji Kondiba Kargal and Ors. Vs Assistant Registrar for Co-Operative Societies, Indapur and Ors.

Shri. Kundansing Pandit Thoke Vs President and Upper Disrict Collector Divisional Caste Verification Committee Nasik NO.2

Shiv Sena, through Shri. Pramod Laxman Jadhav Vs Mr. Mohan Laxman Bhagat

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and Ors. . Vs M/S. Kansan Communications Pvt. Ltd.

Umesh Mehra and Anr. Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.