Quashed

Bhairavnath Tulshiram Zanje v. Maharashtra State Sports and Youth Services and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Dec 2013WP/1715/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an employer cannot terminate services to frustrate an employee's claim for permanency before the Industrial Court. The court quashed the impugned order and relegated the complaint back to the Industrial Court for adjudication based on conditions at the time of institution.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and order of the Industrial Court dated 15/12/2011 in U.L.P. No.16/2002 is quashed and set aside, and the complaint is relegated back to the Industrial Court.

Bhairavnath Tulshiram Zanje Vs Maharashtra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

Writ Petition No.1715 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1715 OF 2012

¶5

Bhairavnath Tulshiram Zanje PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Maharashtra State Sports and Youth Services and others RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr.P.V.Barde, Advocate for petitioner.

¶9

Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶10

(CORAM : RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, J.)

¶11

DATE : 16/12/2013

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

Heard learned Advocates for the respective sides.

¶14

By order dated 29/11/2013, in para no.1, this Court has noted

¶15

the date of filing of the complaint as 21/06/2002, notice of the Industrial Court having been issued on 22/06/2002 and the respondents having received the notice on 24/06/2002. The said dates ought to be 21/01/2002, 22/01/2002 and 24/01/2002 respectively. Petitioner was thereafter terminated on 06/02/2002.

¶16

( 2 ) Writ Petition No.1715 of 2012

¶17

A short point is raised for consideration of this Court. Whether

¶18

the Industrial Court is left bereft of powers and jurisdiction, if after institution of the complaint seeking permanency and notice having been served on the respondent employer, services of the worker are terminated. This may be to frustrate the claim of the worker. This issue is no longer resintegra.

¶19

In the case of Yamunabai Dattoba Taware Vs.Nana Bhikoba

¶20

Nagade, reported at 2006(6) Bom.C.R. 31 , the Division Bench of

¶21

this Court has considered the issue as to whether the Trial Court is require to decide matters and all issues involved in a suit or whether piecemeal trial on preliminary issue would be permissible. The view taken is that all the issues will have to be decided.

¶22

Similar is the view of the Division Bench in the case of Jagdish

¶23

Hari Thatte and others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater

¶24

Bombay and another, reported at 2007(1) Bom.C.R.577 . This

¶25

Court has also dealt with a similar situation in the case of Universal

¶26

Ferro and Allied Chemicals Limited Versus Member, Industrial

¶27

( 3 ) Writ Petition No.1715 of 2012

¶28

Court and others, reported at 2002(3) Bom.C.R. 650 and in the

¶29

case of Municipal Council, Pulgaon Vs. Manu W/o.Sudesh Malik

¶30

and another, reported at 2007(6) ALL MR 267.

¶31

An attempt on the part of the employer to frustrate the claim of an employee seeking permanency / regularization before the Industrial Court by terminating his services during the pendancy of the complaint has been deprecated and shall continue to be deprecated.

¶32

A complaint under the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, instituted for claiming permanency / regularization or for any other reason needs to be adjudicated upon as on date of its institution. Any act allegedly amounting to U.L.P. on the said date will have to be considered by the Industrial Court as a part of its adjudicatory duties.

¶33

In the case on hand, when the claim for permanency was pending and the Court’s notice upon institution of the complaint was served on the respondent, it chose to terminate his services so as to

¶34

( 4 ) Writ Petition No.1715 of 2012

¶35

truncate his rights and frustrate his claim. Merely on this ground, the Jurisdiction of the Industrial Court can not be ousted, as has

¶36

been erroneously held in the impugned judgment.

¶37

In these circumstances, the impugned judgment and order of the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar dated 15/12/2011 in complaint U.L.P. No.16/2002 is quashed and set aside. Complaint (U.L.P.) No.

¶38

16/2002 is relegated back to the file of the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar for decision in accordance with Law and with reference to the claim of the petitioner as on date of the institution of the complaint.

¶39

Writ petition is, therefore, disposed of in the above terms. No

¶40

order as to costs.

¶41

( RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, J.)

¶42

khs/Dec.2013/wp171512

Bhairavnath Tulshiram Zanje v. Maharashtra State Sports and Youth Services and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhairavnath Tulshiram Zanje v. Maharashtra State Sports and Youth Services and Ors.

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

Kashinath Parvati Labade Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Anr.

Namdeo Daulatrao Chavan Vs the Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Another

Santosh Vasant Pakale and Anr. Vs Rangnath Nivrutti Dhavalshank and Ors.

Sandip Pandurang Nannaware Vs Shrigonda Krishi Utpana Bazar Samiti and Anr.

Municipal Council, Sillod Vs Bhanudas Jayawanta Sonawane

Padnalay Construction, Jalgaon Thr Proprietor Vs the State of Mah and Anr.