Remanded

Suresh Babulal Gavande v. the Chief Officer, Nandurbar Nagar Parishad and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Dec 2013WP/4122/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged dismissal of his industrial complaint claiming he was not a workman. Single-word finding by Industrial Court was deemed insufficient; writ court quashed order and remanded for fresh evidence. null

What did the court decide?

Impugned Judgment and Order of Industrial Court quashed; parties remanded to adduce oral/documentary evidence and decide issue on workman status afresh.

Suresh Babulal Gavande Vs the Chief Officer, Nandurbar… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 W.P. 4122.2012 - [ J ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4122 OF 2012

¶4

Suresh Babulal Gavande

¶5

Age : 50 Yrs., Occ. Service, R/o : 35, Gurusavali, Sargam Colony, Nandurbar,Tq. & Dist. Nandurbar. .... PETITIONER

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

The Chief Officer, Nandurbar Nagar Parishad, Nandurbar.

¶8

The Director, Nagar Parishad Administration Directorate, New Administration building, Sarpochkhanwala Road, 3rd Floor, Government Transport Service Building, Varali, Mumbai - 40. .... RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. C.R.Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. A.B.Girase, Advocate for Resp. No. 1.

¶11

2 W.P. 4122.2012 - [ J ]

¶12

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.

¶13

DATE OF JUDGMENT : 17/12/2013

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶15

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of

¶16

the learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing.

¶17

The petitioner had filed Complaint [ ULP ] before the Industrial Court challenging the order of recovery. The said Complaint is dismissed on the ground that the petitioner is not a workman and as such the Industrial Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶18

Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of the stray statement in the cross examination, the Industrial Court has held that the petitioner is not a workman. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner did not understand the distinction between the supervisory cadre and the workman. The learned counsel submits that in fact even the respondent's witness who is the Chief Executive Officer, has admitted that the petitioner is working in Class III post. He does not have the power to engage any

¶19

person in employment nor has any power to terminate or take

¶20

3 W.P. 4122.2012 - [ J ]

¶21

disciplinary action. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner does not discharge any managerial functions or supervisory functions. Only on the basis of the stray statement, the Court could not have held the petitioner as working in the managerial capacity.

¶22

Mr. Girase, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the petitioner himself has admitted that he is working in the supervisory capacity. As such no other evidence is required. The Industrial Court has rightly dismissed the Complaint.

¶23

Whether the petitioner is a workman or not can not be gathered on the basis of a solitary statement in the cross examination. The totality of the evidence is required to be considered while concluding the status of a person being a workman or not. The Court was expected to evaluate the evidence of the petitioner and the respondent and then arrive at the conclusion. However, from the perusal of the Judgment, it is manifest that the Industrial Court has referred to only solitary statement of the petitioner and has concluded that the petitioner is not a workman. The Court was expected to even scan the evidence led by the respondent, so also the other evidence of the petitioner.

¶24

4 W.P. 4122.2012 - [ J ]

¶25

Considering the above, the impugned Judgment and Order

¶26

is quashed and set aside. The parties are relegated before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court shall afford opportunity to the parties to adduce oral as well as documentary evidence with regard to the issue about the petitioner being workman or not and then decide the same afresh.

¶27

The parties shall appear before the Industrial Court on 09/01/2014.

¶28

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

¶29

[ S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶30

KNP/W.P. 4122.2012 - [ J ]

Suresh Babulal Gavande v. the Chief Officer, Nandurbar Nagar Parishad and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Babulal Gavande v. the Chief Officer, Nandurbar Nagar Parishad and Anr.

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

Kadu Onkar Patil. Vs the State of Maharashtra.

Tukaram Bapurao Rathod and Another Vs Jankabai Dattarao Shrawane and Others

Tukaram Bapurao Rathod and Another Vs Jankabai Dattarao Shrawane and Others

The State of Mah and Ors. Vs Dhondiba Eknath Kajale

Savita Balkrushna @ Anil Kulkarni and Ors. Vs Waman Sopan Shitre and Anr.

Suhas Yashwant Joshi Vs Shriom Balkisan Agrawal and Anr.