Dismissed

Chandrakant Rabaji Dhawale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC16 Oct 2018PIL/33/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought to quash a settlement memorandum dated July 2, 2014, between a trade union and Exide Industries Limited under the Industrial Disputes Act. The court dismissed this PIL as misconceived, held that the settlement was legally arrived at by invited parties, and noted the petitioner failed to approach local authorities first.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed at the threshold as a misconceived Public Interest Litigation.

Chandrakant Rabaji Dhawale Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

33.17pil

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.33 OF 2017

¶5

Chandrakant s/o Rabaji Dhawale, Age: 60 years, Occu: social work, R/o Ganvthan, Kharekarjune, Tq. & dist. Ahmednagar ..PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Nariman Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400032

¶8

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Department of Labour, Mantralaya Madam Cama Road, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Nariman Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400032

¶9

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Industries Mining Employment & Self Employment Department, Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Nariman Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400032

¶10

The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Sattha Colony, Near Khalkar Hospital, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar

¶11

Exide Industries Limited, E-5 MIDC, Ahmednagar, Through its Manager

¶12

The State Advisory Board, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, Through its Chairman

¶13

33.17pil

¶14

(2)

¶15

The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Nashik Division, Udyog Bhavan, 4^th Floor, Satpur Road, Nashik

¶16

The Deputy Director, Industrial Safety and Health, Ahmednagar – 414001

¶17

Sawraj Kamgar Sanghatana, Gajanan Colony, Dongare Complex, Ahmednagar – 414001 Through its Secretary ..RESPONDENTS

¶18

Mr P. S. Anerao, Advocate for petitioner; Mr A. R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondents/State

¶19

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND

¶20

MANISH PITALE, JJ.

¶21

DATE : 16th October, 2018

¶22

ORAL ORDER:

¶23

Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶24

Though the present petition is named and styled as public interest litigation, on perusal of the material placed on record, contents and the prayers of the petition, we are of the clear opinion that this is an absolutely misconceived petition.

¶25

The petitioner claims to be a social worker and prays that by issuing writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ or directions, order, quash and set aside the memorandum of settlement made by respondent Nos.5 and 9, dated 2^nd July, 2014, for the benefit of labour and workers.

¶26

(3)

¶27

Now this memorandum of settlement is between the registered trade union, namely, Swaraj Kamgar Sanghatana and industry, namely, Exide Industries Limited. A copy of the memorandum of settlement is placed on record, which clearly states that the settlement is arrived at by the parties by invoking the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rules thereunder. On the backdrop of this very fact, we are unable to entertain the petition which is termed and styled as public interest litigation.

¶28

Learned Counsel for the petitioner made a statement before us that he has raised certain grievance before the authorities and our attention was invited to the representation made to the Secretary of Labour and Industries Department. On a specific query put to learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶29

as to whether the petitioner approached any local authority, he fairly submits that no such exercise is undertaken by the petitioner by approaching directly local authorities for raising his grievance.

¶30

Considering all above referred facts, we are not at all inclined to entertain the petition and the petition requires to be dismissed at the threshold. Accordingly, the public interest litigation is dismissed.

¶31

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶32

(PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

¶33

sjk

Chandrakant Rabaji Dhawale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant Rabaji Dhawale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Sanjay Bhaskar Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vithal Pandurang Barge Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Mr. Irba Mashnaji Konapure vs State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Vithal Pandurang Barge Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Ram Suryabhan Khade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Adiwasi Chetna Parishad Thorough Chairman Shridhar Khandu Salunke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhaskar Vishnu Mapari and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Smt. Yasmeen Yakub Momin Vs Achuta Aange, through Commissioner Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Swati Laxman Patil Vs the Education Officer Primary Zilla Parishad Jalgaon and Others

Venkatesh Narayan Yasamwar Vs Ajit Kumbhar Sub Divisional Officer Kinwat Dist Nanded

Ashok Vasantrao Bochare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vilas Gyanoba Rajole Vs the Regional Officer Midc at Latur and Ors.

Rahul Macchindra Bhalerao and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Dattaram Shelge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others