Vhb Life Sciences Ltd. Thr. Its Authorised Officer v. Dilip Chimanrao Suryawanshi

Bombay HC19 Jan 2015WP/4032/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition and an application for withdrawal of deposit. It permitted the employee to withdraw Rs. 2,29,625 deposited by the employer, subject to an indemnity bond, and directed the Industrial Court to dispose of the revision within six months.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to respondent-employee to withdraw deposited amount of Rs. 2,29,625 subject to execution of indemnity bond.

Vhb Life Sciences Ltd. Thr. Its Authorised Officer Vs… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

4032.14wp

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4032 OF 2014

¶5

VHB Life Science Ltd., Through its Authorised Officer, AB/50 Government Industrial Estate, Charkhop Village, Kandivali (West), Mumbai. ...Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

Dilip s/o Chimanrao Suryawanshi, Age: 43 years, Occ: Not known, R/o. 135-A, Prabhat Nagar, Deopur, Dhule, Tal & Dist. Dhule.

¶8

...Respondent

¶9

WITH

¶10

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12640 OF 2014 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4032 OF 2014

¶11

Dilip s/o Chimanrao Suryawanshi, Age: 43 years, Occ: Not known, R/o. 135-A, Prabhat Nagar, Deopur, Dhule, Tal & Dist. Dhule.

¶12

...Applicant

¶13

versus

¶14

VHB Life Science Ltd., Through its Authorized Officer, AB/50 Government Industrial Estate, Charkhop Village, Kandivali (West), Mumbai. ...Respondent

¶15

Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate for petitioner in writ petition and for respondent in civil application.

¶16

Mr. N.L. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent in writ petitioner and for applicant in civil application.

¶17

4032.14wp

¶18

-2-

¶19

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

¶20

DATED : 19TH JANUARY, 2015

¶21

PER COURT :

¶22

. Civil Application No. 12640 of 2014 is preferred by an employee seeking permission to withdraw an amount of Rs.2,29,625/- (Rs. Two lacs twenty nine thousand six hundred and twenty five only) deposited in this Court.

¶23

The respondent was successful party in the judgment delivered in Complaint (ULP) No. 04 of 2009, whereby present petitioner was declared to have engaged in unfair labour practice and it was directed that the respondent be reinstated with continuity alongwith full back wages.

¶24

In the Revision, learned Industrial Court has refused to grant stay to the said judgment.

¶25

This Court has on 12/08/2014 granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C) on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit half of the back wages. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 2,29,625/-, which is sought to be

¶26

4032.14wp -3-

¶27

withdrawn by the respondent-employee.

¶28

With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.

¶29

It is noticed that learned Labour Court has after having framed issues answered the same based on oral and documentary evidence and has given verdict in favour of the respondent that the petitioner herein is engaged in unfair labour practice.

¶30

Learned Industrial Court in the Revision, while considering the claim for grant of stay at the behest of the petitioneremployer, noticed that though sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to enter into witness box, however, the petitioner has not availed the same. It is also noticed by learned Industrial Court that the respondent-employee has established by cogent evidence his cause and as such, his claim was rightly allowed and has refused to grant stay, as no prima facie case was noticed.

¶31

In the light of above and as parties are in agreement that Revision would be disposed of finally, by expediting the same, present writ petition stands disposed of, with directions to the Industrial Court to decide the Revision within a period of six months

4032.14wp

-4-

from today.,

In the above background, Civil Application No. 12640 of 2014 stands allowed.

¶36

The respondent-employee is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner in this Court, subject to condition that the respondent-employee executes the indemnity bond to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial) of the same amount.

¶37

[ N.W. SAMBRE, J. ]

¶38

Tupe/19.01.15

Vhb Life Sciences Ltd. Thr. Its Authorised Officer v. Dilip Chimanrao Suryawanshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vhb Life Sciences Ltd. Thr. Its Authorised Officer v. Dilip Chimanrao Suryawanshi

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

Satwaji Gyanba Munde Vs Anjanabai Eknath Gite and Others

Mohammad Sk. Haneef and Others Vs Madhukar Asaram Tribhuwan and Others

Sadashiv Ramkrishna Pathak Died Lrs and Ors. Vs Vijaya Devidas Upasani and Anr.

Sanjay Ramdas Jape and Others Vs Parighabai Ramdas Jape and Others

Chandrakant Ramdas Jape Vs Ashok Ramdas Jape and Others

Baburao Daulatrao More Vs Vasant Madhavrao Pawar