Remanded

Ramkisan Dadaram Lahane v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Oct 2015WP/2135/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order dismissed by the Industrial Court. The High Court held that the lower court failed to address key factual issues regarding EGS employment and termination. The judgment was remanded for fresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment dated 18.11.2011 was quashed and set aside, and Complaint (ULP) No.23 of 2005 was remitted to the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, for fresh adjudication.

Ramkisan Dadaram Lahane Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

WP/2135/2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2135 OF 2012

¶5

RAMKISAN DADARAM LAHANE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

¶6

... CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. Dated: October 13, 2015

¶7

PER COURT :-

¶8

On 8.6.2015, this Court had considered the rival submissions of the litigating sides. Paragraph Nos.1 to 3 of the said order read as under:-

¶9

“1. This matter was heard for some time. The issues raised by the rival sides are as regards whether the petitioner was working on EGS, whether he was issued with an identity card, whether payments were made under EGS, seniority list was maintained by the Forest Department, whether the petitioner was terminated on the date of institution of Complaint (ULP) No.23/2005? I do not find that the Industrial Court has dealt with any of these issues.

¶10

2. Mr.Patil seeks accommodation to take instructions from the respondent department as to whether the Department has the EGS record pertaining to the petitioner and if yes, whether such record could be produced before the Industrial Court upon remanding Complaint (ULP) No.23/2005 for a fresh adjudication.

¶11

3. Stand over to 29/06/2015. Since the petitioner is presently allotted work, status-quo be maintained in the light of the same until further orders. ”

¶12

WP/2135/2012

¶13

¶14

Shri Patil submits that if the matter is remanded to the Industrial Court, the respondent would lead oral and documentary evidence and produce the record to prove that the petitioner was working on EGS.

¶15

Shri Barde learned Advocate prays for costs, which I am not inclined to grant since his Complaint (ULP) No.23 of 2005 has been dismissed by the Industrial Court.

¶16

In the light of the above, the impugned judgment dated 18.11.2011 is quashed and set aside. Complaint (ULP) No.23 of 2005 is remitted back to the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar. The litigating sides shall appear before the Industrial Court on 6.11.2015. Formal notices need not be issued by the Industrial Court.

¶17

In addition to the oral and documentary evidence already recorded in the proceedings, the litigating sides shall be at liberty to adduce further oral and documentary evidence and the Industrial Court shall come to a conclusion as to whether the petitioner was working under the EGS or otherwise while dealing with the complaint afresh.

¶18

Needless to state, all contentions of the litigating sides are kept open.

¶19

WP/2135/2012

¶20

¶21

The protection granted by this Court in paragraph No.3 of the order dated 8.6.2015, as reproduced above, shall continue till the complaint is decided by the Industrial Court.

¶22

akl/d

Ramkisan Dadaram Lahane v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkisan Dadaram Lahane v. the State of Mah and Ors.

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

Dattu Sonaba Kasabe Vs Mahesh Pathak and Another

The Principal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anothers

Manohar Dadaji Nerkar Vs Mahatma Jyotirao Phule Shikshan Sanstha through Its President and Others

Qazi Bebi Farheen Tabassum Vs Bukhari Urdu Education Society, Beed and Others

Mangal Dhanraj More Vs the Managing Director, Indira Sahakari Soot Girni Maryadit

Sukhdev Mohanaji Ghorpade Vs Deputy Forest Conservator, Ahmednagar