Dismissed

Krantikar Kamgar Union v. Shri. Prashant K. Kumar and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Jan 2015WP/7243/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the Conciliation Officer's order in a departmental enquiry. The court dismissed the petition without exercising writ jurisdiction, noting the enquiry was pending and all remedies remained open before the appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; all contentions on merits kept open for pursuit before the appropriate forum.

Krantikar Kamgar Union Vs Shri. Prashant K. Kumar and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2015)

1/3

WP7243-16.1

PNP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.7243 OF 2014

¶7

Krantikari Kamgar Union versus Conciliation Officer and Administrator of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and another

¶8

...Petitioner.

¶9

..Respondents.

¶10

Mr. Manmohan A. Amonkar with Mr. Rajmohan A. Amonkar for the Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. S.S. Deshmukh for Respondent No.1.

¶12

Mr. S.K. Talsania, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. R.V. Paranjape for Respondent No.2.

¶13

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL &

A.S. GADKARI, JJ.

16 January, 2015

P.C. :

The Petitioner challenges the order passed by the Conciliation Officer dated 22^nd April, 2014, holding a departmental enquiry under the Dadra and Nagar Haveli Model Standing Orders, 2005.

¶18

The learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that in view of the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.3362 of 2008 on 2^nd August, 2011, the Central Standing Orders are made applicable to the enquiries conducted by the Union Territory

2/3

WP7243-16.1

PNP

administration. The administration has conducted enquiry under the Dadra and Nagar Haveli Model Standing Orders. The Petitioner has not been represented properly though it has cross examined witnesses. The Union representative was not permitted to cross examine which has caused prejudice to the Petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the Conciliation Officer erroneously rejected the reference of industrial dispute.

¶23

The learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 submits that the enquiry is proceeding since last two years and the management is unable to complete the enquiry. The Petitioner was given an opportunity. It has cross examined the witnesses in detail. Number of adjournments were taken during the course of the enquiry. The conduct of the Petitioner is reflected from the charges levelled against. This is a matter concerning the safety of women workers in the factory premises. The Petitioner has got adequate opportunities to represent itself. In the facts, the Conciliation Officer has rejected the reference under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by observing that it does not constitute an 'industrial dispute'.

¶24

We have seen from the record shown to us that the Petitioner has cross examined the witnesses in detail including the women employees and others. In such matters, the enquiry shall be completed at the earliest. It is in the larger interest of the administration of any establishment. However, in case the Petitioner is aggrieved by the final outcome of the

3/3

WP7243-16.1

PNP

enquiry, all remedies are open to be pursued before the appropriate forum. We are not inclined to exercise writ jurisdiction to interfere in the matter, at this stage The Petition is dismissed.

¶29

All contentions on merits are kept open.

¶30

(Naresh H. Patil, J.)

¶31

(A.S. Gadkari, J.)

Krantikar Kamgar Union v. Shri. Prashant K. Kumar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krantikar Kamgar Union v. Shri. Prashant K. Kumar 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

Shri. Prashant Prakash Adhangale and Ors. Vs the Vice-Chancellor through Registrar, Yashwantrao Chavan Maha. Open University and Ors.

Mr. Kunal Nandkumar Pensalwar and Anr. Vs the Principal Secretary, Industry, Energy and Labour Dept and Ors.

The Seva Vikas Co-Operative Bank Limited and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Co-Operation and Anr.

Mr. Bhupal Mahipati Shete Major and Vs Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Mr. Bhupal Mahipati Shete Major and Vs Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Nirbhay Foundation, through Shri. Manoj Suresh Pingale Vs Mumbai Nashik Exprressway Ltd. and Ors.