Allowed

Sansera Engineering (P) Limited v. Shri. Ajit Shivaji Pawade and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Feb 2013WP/1587/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges an Industrial Court order that did not account for the continuance of a status-quo order or certain pending applications. The court quashed the impugned order and directed a fresh consideration of all relevant applications by the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 30.01.2013 quashed; applications U2, U6, U8, U10, U12 restored to Tribunal for fresh hearing.

Sansera Engineering (P) Limited Vs Shri. Ajit Shivaji Pawade and Ors. — Bombay HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

WP1587_13.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1587 OF 2013

¶4

Sansera Engineering (P) Limited Vs.

¶5

Shri Ajit Shivaji Pawade and others

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

… Respondents

¶8

Mr. S. K. Talsania, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Vishal Talsania for the Petitioners.

¶9

Mr. Nitin Kulkarni for Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J. DATE : 26^TH FEBRUARY, 2013

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

Heard Mr. Talsania, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kulkani, learned Counsel for respondents at length.

¶13

By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 30.01.2013 passed by the learned I/c Member, Industrial Court, Pune (for short 'Tribunal') below exhibit-U2 in Complaint (ULP) Nos.290 to 319 of 2012. By that order, the Tribunal has partly allowed the application at Exh.U-2 in all the complaints filed by the respondents and confirmed the order dated 30.11.2012 till the final disposal of the complaint with further directions to the respondent not to disturb the status-quo in respect of the employment of the complainants except in accordance with law. Rule. Mr. Kulkarni waives service for respondents. By consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the Petition is taken up for final hearing.

¶14

In support of this Petition, Mr. Talsania has raised various contentions. However, it is not necessary to record those submissions and

¶15

1/4

¶16

WP1587_13.sxw

¶17

the findings in view of the order that I propose to pass. Mr. Talsania invited my attention to the order dated 30.11.2012 passed by the Tribunal below exhibit-U2. By that order, the Tribunal directed the petitioner herein to maintain status-quo in respect of the employment of the respondents till 07.12.2012. He further invited my attention to the application dated 07.12.2012 made on behalf of the respondents for extension of the order of status-quo dated 30.11.2012. He submitted that on that application, the Tribunal passed order on 07.12.2012 to the following effect:

¶18

“As this matter is fixed for argument on U-2, this application will be considered at that time.”

¶19

In other words, he submitted that the Tribunal did not extend the order of status-quo that was passed on 30.11.2012. He further invited my attention to the application dated 14.12.2012 made on behalf of the complainant Mr. Premdeep Nagapure in Complaint (ULP) No.290 of 2012. Insofar as the complainant Mr. Premdeep Nagapure is concerned, his services were already terminated by the petitioners with effect from 30.11.2012. He also invited my attention to the application made in Complaint (ULP) Nos.290 to 319 of 2012 on 08.01.2013 at exhibit U-10. Finally, he invited my attention to the application dated 16.01.2013 made by the complainant Mr. Premdeep Nagapure in Complaint (ULP) No.290 of 2012 at exhibit-U12. In short, his submission is that while passing the impugned order, the Tribunal has not considered whether the status-quo order that was passed on 30.11.2012 was continued and was in force on the date of passing of the impugned order on 30.01.2013. He submitted that the status-quo order was not extended after 07.12.2012 till 16.01.2013 and in the meantime, the petitioners have discontinued respondent Nos.1 to 20. On instructions of Mr. Jayakara G. Shetty, Deputy General Manager (HRD) of the petitioner, Mr. Talsania states that without prejudice to the rights and

¶20

2/4

¶21

WP1587_13.sxw

¶22

contentions of the petitioner in the pending complaints, the petitioner will continue respondent Nos.21 to 29 pending application at exhibit-U2.

¶23

Mr. Kulkarni fairly submitted that the impugned order does not consider whether the status-quo was extended after 07.12.2012. Even otherwise, after perusal of the impugned order, it can be seen that the Tribunal has not considered as to whether the order of status-quo which was earlier passed on 30.11.2012 was continued after 07.12.2012. The Tribunal has also not considered the effect of discontinuance of respondent Nos.1 to 20. He, therefore, submits that by consent the impugned may be set aside and the Tribunal may be directed to to decide applications at Exhibits-U2, U6, U8, U10 and U12 afresh.

¶24

It is not in dispute that the learned Tribunal has not considered the applications at exhibits-U6, U8, U10 and U12 while deciding the application at exhibits-U2. Hence, by consent, the following order is passed:

¶25

(i) The impugned judgment and order dated 30.01.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal below exhibit-U2 is quashed and set aside and the application at exhibit-U2 is restored to the file of the Tribunal;

¶26

(ii) The Tribunal will decide the applications at exhibits-U2, U6, U8, U10 and U12 together afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law;

¶27

(iii)All contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open;

¶28

(iv)The Tribunal will decide the said applications uninfluenced by any observations made in the impugned order.

¶29

3/4

¶30

WP1587_13.sxw

¶31

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

¶32

The parties agree to appear before the Tribunal on 11.03.2013. The Tribunal is requested to decide the applications within four weeks from the date of appearance of the parties.

¶33

Order accordingly.

¶34

(R. G. KETKAR, J.)

¶35

Minal Parab

¶36

4/4

Sansera Engineering (P) Limited v. Shri. Ajit Shivaji Pawade and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sansera Engineering (P) Limited v. Shri. Ajit Shivaji Pawade 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

Shri. Somnath Tulshiram Galande Vs Presiding Officer, Iind Labour Court, Pune and Ors.

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nashik Vs Shri. v. v. Shetty

Nitin Shamuveal Kurane Vs Ichalkaranji Municipal Council, Ichalkaranji and Ors.

Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors. Vs Municipal Labour Union

Shri. Besil Barrato and Ors. Vs the Indian Hotel Company Employees Union and Ors.

Shri. Mahesh Rangrao Dhere and Ors. Vs Kolhapur Sheti Utpanna Bazaar Samiti, Kolhapur, through Secretary / Sabhapati and Ors.