The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Industrial Court's order finding the petitioner failed to establish unfair labour practices. The trial court noted a lack of evidence regarding alleged out-duty work and contradictions in the muster rolls.
The writ petition challenging the Industrial Court's order is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp4318-15.doc
sg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4318 OF 2015
Shri Ramesh Yeshwantrao Mali ...Petitioner
vs
The Kagal Co-op. Bank Ltd. Through the Chief Executive Officer Kagal, Dist. Kolhapur. ...Respondent
Mr. Vidyasagar Kamble, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Kiran Bapat, i/b. M/s. Desai & Desai Associates, for Respondent No.1.
CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.
DATED: MAY 3, 2016
P.C. :
. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petition challenges an order of dismissal passed by the Industrial Court at Kolhapur in a complaint filed under Section 28, read with Item No.9 of Schedule 4 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Pg 1 of 4
wp4318-15.doc
sg
Bank of India at Mumbai and with various institutes and Government Offices. It is his case that during his tenure at Shahu Sakhar Karkhana Branch, he was virtually on an out-duty work and hence, he was not shown as present at the Branch. It is his claim that the Respondent Bank did not pay any wages to him from the year 2001. He claims to have submitted his resignation to the Bank on 15 September 2005, which resignation was accepted and upon which, he was relieved from duty by the Respondent Bank. It was the complaint of the Petitioner before the Industrial Court at Kolhapur under Section 28, read with Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act that his wages, for the period from November 2001 till his resignation on 15 September 2005, were not paid. It was also his complaint that he was not paid retirement benefits, such as gratuity and provident fund, taking into account his services from 2001 to 2005.
wp4318-15.doc
sg
when he was on out-duty on every single day during November 2001 and October 2004, but each day he was shown absent on the muster roll. The Court also took into account the admitted fact that the Petitioner actually worked as a Councillor with the Municipal Council of Kagal during 2001-2006. The Court noticed that the Respondent Bank for the period of November 2001 onwards throughout showed him absent in the salary sheets. In the face of this documentary and oral evidence before the Court, the Court found that the Petitioner had failed to establish any unfair labour practice on the part of the Respondent Bank.
Pg 3 of 4
wp4318-15.doc
sg
case, there is no point in ascertaining absence on production of the muster roll.
( S.C. GUPTE, J. )
Pg 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to interfere with the findings of the Industrial Court which dismissed the complaint for lack of evidence regarding unfair labour practices.
Whether the petitioner discharged his burden of proving non-payment of wages and retirement benefits during his alleged tenure.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Ramesh Yeshwantrao Mali
The Kagal Co-op. Bank Ltd.
S.C. Gupte
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
