Partly allowed

Mr. Jeewanangan Pandurang Rokade v. the Additional Commissioner of Labour, Pune Division and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Dec 2014WP/10648/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of five writ petitions involving industrial dispute references. The Court directed Respondents 1 and 2 to amend various Industrial Dispute Agreements (IDA No.s 11-13 and 09/2008) to include Respondent No.3 (Yeshwant Shikshan Prasarak Mandal) and decided the matter in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Directing Respondents 1 and 2 to amend References IDA No.11/08, 10/08, 12/08, 13/08, and 09/08 by adding Respondent No.3, and deciding the matter in accordance with law.

Mr. Jeewanangan Pandurang Rokade Vs the… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

dgm 1

¶2

35-wp-11198 with group.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 11198 OF 2013

¶6

Mr. Ashok Dattatray Salokhe .... Petitioner vs The Additional Commissioner of Labour Pune Division and ors .... Respondents

¶7

ALONG WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 11199 OF 2013

¶9

Mr. Tukaram Dagdu Magdum .... Petitioner vs The Additional Commissioner of Labour Pune Division and ors .... Respondents

¶10

ALONG WITH

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO. 10646 OF 2013

¶12

Mr. Satish Jaysingh Kumbhar .... Petitioner vs The Additional Commissioner of Labour Pune Division and ors .... Respondents

¶13

ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10647 OF 2013 Smt. Lata Pandit Kanse .... Petitioner vs The Additional Commissioner of Labour Pune Division and ors .... Respondents

¶14

1/4

¶15

dgm 2

¶16

35-wp-11198 with group.sxw

¶17

AND ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10648 OF 2013

¶18

Mr. Jeewanangan Pandurang Rokade vs The Additional Commissioner of Labour Pune Division and ors

¶19

.... Petitioner

¶20

.... Respondents

¶21

Mr. P. P. Chavan with Mr. Ravindra R. Chille for the petitioners. Mr. P. P. Kakade, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Meelan Topkar for Respondent No.3.

¶22

CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA AND N.M. JAMDAR, JJ.

¶23

DATE : December 08, 2014

¶24

P.C.:

¶25

We are inclined to dispose of the preset Writ Petitions by

¶26

this common order as the Respondents are common so also the issues.

¶27

2 The Assistant Commissioner of Labour by Order dated 9 July 2013, at the instance of Respondent No.3, pending the Writ Petition rejected the Application for Reference by rejecting the Application for rejoinder of necessary parties. Respondent No.4 Hospital is admittedly run by Respondent No.3. The Original

¶28

2/4

¶29

dgm 3 35-wp-11198 with group.sxw

¶30

Reference was bad for nonjoinder of necessary party, namely Respondent No.3 as contended. Therefore, to avoid further complication and in the interest of justice, the Application was sought for bringing amendment to the original Reference and requested to make Reference accordingly. The learned authority, however, rejected the same by recording that the Petitioner to raise a dispute against the employer separately so that necessary Reference can be made.

¶31

3 However, considering the undisputed position on record, including that all the Respondents are connected and/or essential for Reference in question and for proper adjudication, the Application of amendment as sought by the Petitioner, in our view, is necessary to be adjudicated and decided together.

¶32

4 Therefore, we are inclined to dispose of the present Writ Petitions by granting prayer (b) to the extend that Respondents 1 and 2 to amend the References as (a) IDA No.11/2008, (b) IDA No.10/2008,(c ) IDA No. 12/2008, (d) IDA No. 13/2008 and IDA No. 09/2008 in respective matters, by adding Respondent No.3Yeshwant Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and decide the same in accordance with law.

¶33

3/4

¶34

dgm 4 35-wp-11198 with group.sxw

¶35

5 All points kept open.

¶36

6 All the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. There

¶37

shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

(N. M. JAMDAR, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

¶39

4/4

Mr. Jeewanangan Pandurang Rokade v. the Additional Commissioner of Labour, Pune Division and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Jeewanangan Pandurang Rokade v. the Additional Commissioner of Labour, Pune Division 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

Shri. Bharat Atmaram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue) Revenue and Ors.

Sachin S/O Bhimrao Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kapil Moreshwar Patil Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Co-Operation and Ors.

Mr. Satish Jaysingh Kumbhar Vs the Additional Commissioner of Labour, Pune Division and Ors.

Smt. Lata Pandit Kanse Vs the Additional Commissioner of Labour, Pune Division and Ors.

Mr. Ashok Dattatray Salokhe Vs the Additional Commissioner of Labour, Pune Division and Ors.