Dismissed

Hind Kamgar Sanghatana through Its Vice-President v. Oriental Rubber Industries Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Oct 2018WP/3005/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges an order granting trade union recognition. The court dismissed the petition as it was filed with significant delay and held that the petitioner lacked locus standi since they only began functioning in the undertaking in 2017, well after the impugned order was passed in 2014.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition has been dismissed as the petitioner lacks locus standi due to delay and because they began functioning only after the impugned order was passed.

Hind Kamgar Sanghatana through Its Vice-President Vs… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

908-B.wp.3005.18.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3005 OF 2018

¶4

Hind Kamgar Sanghatana … Petitioner Versus Orient Rubber Industries Ltd. & Anr. … Respondents

¶5

Mr. M. D. Modgi for the Petitioner.

¶6

Mr. R. S. Pai a/w Mr. A. K. Gopalan I/by Haresh Mehta & Co. for the Respondent No.1.

¶7

Mr. Neel Helekar for the Respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT AND NITIN W. SAMBRE, JJ. DATE : 23^rd OCTOBER 2018.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

The Judgment and Order dated 12^th February 2014 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Pune in Application (MRTU) No.07 of 2014 is taken exception to by way of the present Petition.

¶11

Vijaya Gourishankar Yadav

¶12

By the said order, recognition was granted to the Respondent No.2 as being the recognized Union, insofar as the Respondent No.1 – Undertaking is concerned. It seems that an Application came to be filed by the Respondent No.2 for recognition under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act,

¶13

Digitally signed by Vijaya Gourishankar Yadav Date: 2018.10.26 15:05:14 +0530

1/3

Yadav VG

908-B.wp.3005.18.odt

1971 (hereinafter be referred to as 'MRTU & PULP Act' for the sake of brevity) on 28^th January 2014. The said application has been allowed by the impugned order dated 12^th February 2014.

¶18

Insofar as the Petitioner is concerned, it is pertinent to note that in paragraph 2 of the Petition it has been averred that the Petitioner had started functioning in the Respondent No.1 – Undertaking since the year 2017 and it is averred that in the complaint (ULP) No. 247 of 2017 filed by the Petitioner that the Petitioner first time became aware of the fact that the recognition has been accorded to the Respondent No.2 under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. It is thereafter that the instant Petition is filed and filing of the said Petition is justified on the said ground. The challenge in the Petition is founded on the fact that the necessary statutory compliances have not been done by the Respondent No.2 prior to it being granted recognition.

¶19

As indicated above, the order dated 12^th February 2014 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court granting recognition to the Respondent No.2 has been challenged by the above Petition which has been filed on 7^th December 2017.

¶20

In our view, both on the ground of delay and latches and

2/3

Yadav VG

908-B.wp.3005.18.odt

having regard to the fact that the Petitioner has started functioning in the Respondent No.1 only from 2017, which fact impinges on the locus standi of the Petitioner to question the impugned order on the ground that necessary compliances have not been made, the above Petition is required to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

¶25

(NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) (R. M. SAVANT, J.)

¶26

3/3

¶27

Yadav VG

Hind Kamgar Sanghatana through Its Vice-President v. Oriental Rubber Industries Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hind Kamgar Sanghatana through Its Vice-President v. Oriental Rubber Industries Ltd. and Anr.

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

Kishor Yashwant Pawan Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Shaligram Ramdas Thakur, C/o Jayesh Shaligram Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Satish Baburao Khodave Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Water Supply and Sanitation Dept. and Ors.

Hind Kamgar Sanghatana through Its Vice-President Vs M/S. Excel Industries Ltd. and Ors.

Shivdas Aasupati Thorat and Ors. Vs the Asstt. Commissioner, Social Welfare Office and Ors.

Shikshan Sangharsha Sanghatana Thru Pres. Smt. Sangita S Shinde and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Chief Secretary, General Administration Dept. and Ors.