Disposed

Rahul Kamble and Ors. v. the Commissioner of Labour and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Feb 2015WP/794/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two writ petitions. Counsel for the petitioners conceded that the dispute regarding their status as workmen required remedies under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court declined to form an opinion on the merits of the 'workman' claim because the Commission Officer proceedings were still pending. Consequently, all issues on merits were kept open. The

What the court decided

AI extract

Rahul Kamble and Ors. Vs the Commissioner of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

wp.633-2015

Dond

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.633 OF 2015

¶6

Praveen Kumar Poonia & Ors.. ..Petitioners Vs.

¶7

The Commissioner of Labour & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶8

WITH

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.794 OF 2015

¶10

Rahul Kamble & Ors. ..Petitioners

¶11

Vs.

¶12

The Commissioner of Labour & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶13

Ms. Gayatri J. Singh for Petitioners in both Writ Petitions. Mr. Darius Khambatta with K.M. Naik, Z. Dastur, Pratik Pawar and M. Nandu i/b J. Sagar Associates for Respondent No.4 in WP-633/2015 and for Respondent No.3 in WP-794/2015.

¶14

Mr. P.P. Kakade, AGP for State.

¶15

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL &

¶16

A.S. GADKARI, JJ.

¶17

DATE : 11^th February 2015.

¶18

P.C.

¶19

Heard.

¶20

2 The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that

¶21

the proceedings pending before the Conciliation Officer are not yet disposed of, and therefore necessary directions be issued.

¶22

¶23

wp.633-2015

¶24

3 The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4 submits that a serious dispute is raised contradicting claim of the Petitioners that they are workmen. He submits that in view of the provisions of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, appropriate remedies are available to the Petitioners, in law. He placed reliance on the affidavit-in-reply of the Respondent No.4. It is that the Petitioners have been terminated by the employer.

¶25

4 The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in both Petitions submits that they will resort to appropriate remedies in view of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and or any other relevant law. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners disputes the statement made on behalf of the Respondent No.4 that the Petitioners are not workmen.

¶26

5 We have perused the provisions of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In view of the said provisions, the Petitioners may resort to appropriate remedies as permissible in law. The Respondent No.4 disputed the claim of the Petitioners that they are workmen. We do not express any opinion on the merits of such claim. The issues on merits are kept open.

¶27

¶28

wp.633-2015

¶29

6 Both the Writ Petitions are disposed of.

¶30

(A.S. GADKARI, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

Rahul Kamble and Ors. v. the Commissioner of Labour and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rahul Kamble and Ors. v. the Commissioner of Labour and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Prashant Dhanaji Pawar Vs Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University

Mr. Popatrao Punjagi Danghe and Ors. Vs Kadava Co-Op. Sugarfactory Ltd. and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary / Chairman, the Maharashtra Public Service Commission Vs Shri. Kantilal Janardhan Pawar

Praveen Kumar Poonia and Ors. Vs the Commissioner of Labour and Ors.

Mr. Shrinath R. Pal Vs Mr. Ratnakar Gaikwad and Ors.

Shaikh Abdul Salam S/O Abdul Nabi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.