Partly allowed

Smt. Bindu W/O Ratnadip Bansod v. State of Maha., through Chief Secretary Planning Department, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC3 Jul 2018WP/4473/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, dismissed a writ petition where the petitioner had filed an Industrial Labour Petition. The court allowed withdrawal of the Industrial dispute to avoid suppression and disposed of the present petition with an interim order expiry in six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed of with liberty to revive the ULP Complaint; interim orders to continue for six weeks.

Smt. Bindu W/O Ratnadip Bansod Vs State of Maha… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

0307wp4473.16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4473 OF 2016

¶5

(Smt. Bindu w/o Ratnadip Bansod vs. The State of Maharashtra thr. its Chief Secretary, Planning Department & Ors.)

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,_____________________________________________________________________________ appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.

¶7

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & Z.A. HAQ, JJ. JULY 03, 2018.

¶8

Shri V.R. Gawali, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. H.N. Prabhu, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mrs. M.P. Munshi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 7, for sometime.

¶9

We have perused the defence raised by the petitioner in her explanation sent to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Zilla Parishad and filed at Annexure 'D' with the petition. It appears to be dated 05.02.2016. In the light of that explanation, we find several disputed questions arise. The exoneration by Gram Sabha and Resolution pressed into service for that purpose by the petitioner, cannot itself be decisive. The CEO has thereafter apportioned the liability.

¶10

Mrs. Munshi, learned counsel has pointed out that the petitioner had filed ULP Complaint No. 12 of 2016 before the Industrial Court. Suppressing that fact, present petition came to be filed and interim order came to be obtained.

¶11

We find that the petitioner thereafter has filed an

¶12

¶13

0307wp4473.16

¶14

affidavit on 19.09.2017 and with it brought on record a pursis seeking leave to withdraw above mentioned ULP and order of Judge, Labour Court, Bhandara dated 25.04.2017, permitting withdrawal.

¶15

In this situation, with liberty to the petitioner to revive her ULP Complaint or to take such other steps as are open to her in law, we dispose of the present petition with no order as to costs.

¶16

Interim orders granted by this Court shall continue in force for a period of six weeks from today and cease to operate immediately thereafter.

¶17

JUDGE JUDGE

¶18

*GS.

Smt. Bindu W/O Ratnadip Bansod v. State of Maha., through Chief Secretary Planning Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bindu W/O Ratnadip Bansod v. State of Maha., through Chief Secretary Planning Department, Mumbai and 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

Shri. Radheshyam Godulal Bareti Vs Shri Nandkumar, Principal Secretary, Higher Education Deparment, Mumbai and 2 Others

Guddi Krishnakumar Ujawane Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development, Mumbai and Others

Namdeorao S/O Anandrao Kubade and Others Vs the State of Maha. Thr Collector, Amravati and Otehrs

Bhojraj S/O Ramesh Dandekar Vs D.B. Tikle, Member of Commi. for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claim, Gadchiroli and Another

Dilip S/O Daulatrao Sadanshio Vs District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 2, Akola Thr. Its Member/Secretary and Others

Dhananjay S/O Shankar Zambre Vs District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 2, Akola Thr. Its Member/Secretary and Others