Dismissed

Kinetic Engineering Ltd. v. Gulabrao Bhandu Pawar

Bombay HC15 Apr 2014LPA/2/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Letters Patent Appeal challenged the dismissal of an employee who was reinstated by lower courts without back wages. Rejecting the appeal, the High Court held the petition devoid of substance given the concurrent finding that the employee was similarly placed to another reinstated union member.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal was rejected as devoid of substance with no interference in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

Kinetic Engineering Ltd. Vs Gulabrao Bhandu… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

lpa 2.14.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2014

¶5

Kinetic Engineering Ltd.
Nagar Daund Road, Ahmednagar.

¶6

Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

Gulabrao s/o. Bhandu Pawar

¶9

Respondent/s

¶10

Mr.V.S. Bedre,advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P.V. Barde, Advocate for rsepondent.

¶11

CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
 A.M. BADAR, JJ.
 DATE : 15TH APRIL, 2014.

¶12

PER COURT:

¶13

1]The complaint presented by the respondent
employee challenging the order of dismissal to the
Labour Court, was decided in his favour and a
direction was issued in respect of his reinstatement,
however, without back wages.

¶14

2]The order passed by the Labour Court has
been confirmed by the Industrial Court in a reference
presented by the employer/appellant.

¶15

3]Challenge to the orders passed by both the
Labour Court and Industrial Court, in a writ petition
presented by the employer, being W.P. No. 2378/2010,

¶16

lpa 2.14.odt

¶17

{2}

¶18

has also been turned down.

¶19

4]It has been noticed by the courts below that
the employer has extended differential treatment to
the petitioner in contradistinction with one Mr.
Thube, who was member of the recognized union and he
has been reinstated on intervention by the said Union.
However, petitioner was meted with penalty of
termination. The courts below have taken note of this
aspectanddirectedreinstatementofthe
respondent/employee, who is similarly placed as Mr.
Thube.

¶20

5]In view of the concurrent finding of the
courts below, which is confirmed by the learned Single
Judge in the writ petition, no interference is called
for in exercise of our appellate jurisdiction. LPA is
devoid of any substance. Hence, the same is rejected.

¶21

[A.M. BADAR][R.M. BORDE]
 JUDGEJUDGE.

¶22

grt/-

Kinetic Engineering Ltd. v. Gulabrao Bhandu Pawar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kinetic Engineering Ltd. v. Gulabrao Bhandu Pawar

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

Kisan Tatyaba Gunjkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dr. Dilip Deoram Chaudhari and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Haridas Amruta Tayde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pramilabai Pralhadrao Pattewar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohd. Mainoddin Maheboobsab Qureshi and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Waman Icchu Dhodya and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others