Dismissed

Maharashra General Kamgar Union v. M/S Jerry Varghess International Ltd. and 5 Others

Bombay HC3 Jul 2017WP/931/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Writ Petition challenged the impleadment of a new trade union after employees resigned from the petitioner. The High Court observed the legal position allowing the new union to represent the employees and dismissed the petition without merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; held that new union can represent employees despite their resignation from the complainant union.

Maharashra General Kamgar Union Vs M/S Jerry… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

77 os wp 931-17.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION.

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 931OF 2017

¶4

Maharashtra General Kamgar Union

¶5

..Petitioner

¶6

v/s.

¶7

M/s. Jerry Verghese International Ltd. & Ors. ..Respondents

¶8

Ms. Karuna Yadav i/b. N.M.Ganguli for the Petitioner. Mr. Sunil Kharwal i/b. Raj Legal for the Respondent No.4.

¶9

CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. DATED : 3^rd JULY, 2017.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Heard. The petitioner herein had filed a complaint on behalf

¶12

of the employees under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of

¶13

Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act, 1971), alleging Unfair Labour Practice under Item 1(A)(B) and 2(A) of Schedule 2 of item 9 and 10 and item 9 and 10 of Schedule IV.

¶14

It appears that the employees on whose behalf the complaint

¶15

was filed have resigned from the petitioner union and joined the respondent no.4 Union. Since all the employees, on whose behalf the

1 of 2

pps

77 os wp 931-17.doc

complaint was filed, are now the members of the respondent no.4 Union, an application was filed to implead respondent no.4 as a party complainant. The learned Judge after considering the submissions advanced by the rival parties allowed the application to implead the respondent no.4 as a complainant and also allowed the consequential amendment.

¶20

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the complaint was filed by the Petitioner Union and since the employees have resigned from the Petitioner Union, the complaint itself should be dismissed. The submission has absolutely no merits. The complaint was filed by the Petitioner Union on behalf of the employees. The employees on whose behalf the complaint was filed have now joined the respondent no.4 Union. The respondent no.4 Union has every right to proceed with the matter and espouse the case of the said employees and safeguard their interest. Hence the complaint cannot be dismissed mainly because of resignation of the employees from the petitioner Union. The petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶21

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

¶22

2 of 2

¶23

pps

Maharashra General Kamgar Union v. M/S Jerry Varghess International Ltd. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashra General Kamgar Union v. M/S Jerry Varghess International Ltd. and 5 Others

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

Neelesh Satish Kanade Vs Ramchandra Shankarrao Mate and Ors.

Omkar Constructions,(a Partnershipo Firm) Thr.Its Partners Vs Ogale Glass Works Limited Thr.Its Mukund N.Kadam(Patil)and Ors.

Mrs. Shubhangi Ramesh Bhatkar Vs Mrs. Dipmala Dattaram Bhatkar

Radhe Shyam Chaurasia Vs Narayan Shikshan Prasarak Trust and Ors.

Radhe Shyam Chaurasia Vs Narayan Shikshan Prasarak Trust through the Chairman

Shri Vishnu Dasharath Chavan Vs Shri Pundalik Dasharath Chavan