Disposed

Maharashtra S. T. Workers Congress (Intuc) v. the State of Maharashtra, Thorugh Principal Secretary, Home Dept (Transport) and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Mar 2013WP/1620/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding payment of minimum wages by the respondent Corporation. Pending negotiations, the respondent agreed to pay wages in installments. The Court directed the petitioner to submit a representation to determine the exact wages payable and granted liberty to approach the Court again if the representation was adversely decided.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to make a representation to the Competent Authority regarding the salary to be paid; liberty granted to approach the Court again if the representation is adversely decided.

Maharashtra S. T. Workers Congress (Intuc) Vs the… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

WP. 1620-12

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 1620 OF 2012

¶6

Maharashtra S. T. Workers Congress (INTUC) ... Petitioner Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents

¶8

¶9

Mr. Seema Chopda & T. R. Yadav, for the Petitioner. Mr. S. N. Patil, AGP for Respondent No. 1. Mr. C. M. Lokes i/b M. S. Topkar, for Respondent No. 3.

¶10

¶11

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, AND Smt. R. P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. DATE : MARCH 12, 2013

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Heard. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 Corporation is not paying their members wages & salary in accordance with provisions of the Notification under the Minimum Wages Act. During pendency of the petition, negotiations were going on between the Petitioner - Union of employees and the Corporation and now by order dated 11^th March, 2013, Under Secretary, Home Department, State of Maharashtra has now taken a decision to accordingly pay the respondent's employees minimum wages, however, in installments, which was intimated by a communication dated 12^th March, 2013.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that

¶15

1/2

¶16

WP. 1620-12

¶17

there is still a dispute in respect of actual wages/salary, which is to be paid to the employees. In this view of the matter, in our view, since main issue has now been resolved, pursuant to the order dated 11^th March, 2013, it would be appropriate if petitioner makes an appropriate representation to the Respondent's Competent Authority, who shall consider the representation and take a decision in respect of the salary, which is to be paid to the members of the Petitioner.

¶18

Writ petition is accordingly disposed in the aforesaid terms. It is clarified that all contentions raised by the petitioner in respect of minimum wages/ salary payable, are kept open and if any adverse decision is given by the Competent Authority on the representation which is made by the petitioner, in that case, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach this Court again. With this direction, petition is disposed of.

¶19

Vinayak Halemath

¶20

2/2

Maharashtra S. T. Workers Congress (Intuc) v. the State of Maharashtra, Thorugh Principal Secretary, Home Dept (Transport) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra S. T. Workers Congress (Intuc) v. the State of Maharashtra, Thorugh Principal Secretary, Home Dept (Transport) and Ors.

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

Ashok Ramchandra Ghare and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hybrid Financial Services Limited and Ors. Vs Assistant Provident Fudn Commissioner and Ors.

Rajesh Balchandra Chalke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Akhil Bharatiya Safai Majdoor Congress, through President, Satish v. Lalbige Vs the Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Mrs. Sandhya Manohar Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Prot. and or

Mr. Abhay Shankarrao Parlikar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Co-Operation and Ors.