Dismissed

Chief Executive Officer, Ratnagiri Zilla Parishad v. Shrikant Raghunath Prabhavale

Bombay HC3 Aug 2017WP/4203/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of the writ petition filed under Article 227 challenging an Industrial Court order. The petition was allowed as dismissed because the petitioner, via a unanimous General Body Resolution, had already resolved to withdraw the petition.

What did the court decide?

Rule discharged with no order as to costs; liberty reserved for review if resolution is rescinded.

Chief Executive Officer, Ratnagiri Zilla… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2017)

5-W.P.-4203 of 2010

Shailaja

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 4203 OF 2010

¶7

Chief Executive Officer ] Ratnagiri Zilla Parishad, ] Petitioner Vs. Shrikant Raghunath Prabhavale ] Respondent …...

¶8

Mr. Shashank Mangle, for petitioner. Mr. Bhatkar, for respondent.

¶9

CORAM : R.G. KETKAR, J.

¶10

DATE : 3^rd AUGUST, 2017. P.C .

¶11

Heard Mr. Mangle, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhatkar, learned Counsel for the respondent at length.

¶12

By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ratnagiri has challenged the judgment and order dated 19^th August, 2009 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Kolhapur [for short 'Tribunal'] in Revision Application [U.L.P] No. 2 of 2007. By that order, the Tribunal allowed the Revision Application filed by the respondent herein u/s 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 [for short 'Act'] and set aside the order dated 18^th December, 2006 passed by the learned Judge, Labour

¶13

2 5-W.P.-4203 of 2010

¶14

Court, Ratnagiri in Complaint [U.L.P] No. 21 of 1997. The Tribunal allowed the complaint filed by the respondent u/s 28 r/w Items 1 (a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule-IV of the Act by setting aside the order of termination and directed the petitioner herein to continue the respondent in the employment.

¶15

After hearing both the sides by order dated 26^th July, 2010, this Court admitted Writ Petition by issuing Rule. After recording that respondent has been continued in service during pendency of the Revision Application and that he is still continuing in service, this Court did not stay the impugned order.

¶16

The matter was heard on 13^th July, 2017. Mr. Bhatkar submitted that on 7^th July, 2011, General Body of Zilla Parishad Ratnagiri had passed resolution for withdrawing Writ Petition. He was directed to file affidavit placing on record General Body Resolution dated 7^th July, 2011. Accordingly, respondent has filed affidavit dated 18^th July, 2017 enclosing therewith proceedings of the General Body Meeting dated 7^th July, 2011. He submitted that inadvertently, affidavit is filed in Writ Petition No. 14358 of 2016.

¶17

Mr. Mangle states that Mr. Mohite, Junior Desk Officer is present in the Court. He is not in a position to make a positive statement as to whether General Body Resolution dated 7^th July, 2011 was subsequently rescinded. No reply is filed controverting the statements made in the affidavit of the respondent dated 18^th July, 2017.

¶18

3 5-W.P.-4203 of 2010

¶19

After perusing the affidavit filed by the respondent on 18^th July, 2017 as also Minutes of the General Body Meeting dated 7^th July, 2011, it is evident that unanimous Resolution is passed by the General Body for withdrawing the Writ Petition.

¶20

Mr. Mangle states that responsible officer Mr. A.A. Athalye, District Health Officer was directed to remain present. However, he could not remain present as he is hospitalized.

¶21

In view of Resolution No. 744 passed by the General Body of the petitioner on 7^th July, 2011, nothing survives in this Petition and the same is accordingly disposed of. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file Review Petition in case Resolution No. 744 dated 7^th July, 2011 is rescinded by the petitioner prior to passing of this order.

¶22

[R.G. KETKAR, J.]

Chief Executive Officer, Ratnagiri Zilla Parishad v. Shrikant Raghunath Prabhavale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chief Executive Officer, Ratnagiri Zilla Parishad v. Shrikant Raghunath Prabhavale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Construction Company Private Limited Vs the Minister for Co-Operation, Marketing and Textiles and 3 Ors.

Haresh M. Patel Vs Deputy District Registrar of Co-Operative Societies and 3 Ors.

Mr. Arun Eknath Wankhedkar Vs Hal (Nashik Division) Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. and Ors.

Dr. Shrikant Raghunath Prabhavale Vs Chief Executive Officer and Anr.

Shri. Bhogwati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhanan Vs Shri. Ananda Ishwara Kumbhar and Ors.

Rajan Parsharam Khanvilkar Vs the State of Maharahtra and Anr.