Remanded

M/S Lumax Auto Technologies Ltd. Aurangabad through Plant Heard v. Aurangabad Majdoor Union through General Secretary

Bombay HC10 Aug 2018WP/8952/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP 8952/2018, a writ petitioner challenged an order passed by the Industrial Court dismissing its application after filing a 'say', arguing it was not heard. The Judge set aside the impugned order for violation of hearing principles and remitted the matter for a fresh hearing with a four-week deadline.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 12th March, 2018 set aside; matter remitted to Industrial Court for fresh hearing of application U-36 within four weeks.

M/S Lumax Auto Technologies Ltd. Aurangabad… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 WP 8952/2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 8952 of 2018

¶4

M/s. Lumax Auto Technologies Limited Plot No. A-8, Waluj MIDC Industrial Area, Aurangabad, through its Plant Head. ...Petitioner

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

Aurangabad Majdoor Union, Ajab Nagar, CITU Office, Aurangabad, through its General Secretary, Aurangabad ...Respondent

¶7

Mr T.K. Prabhakaran, Advocate for petitioners Mr R.B. Mule, Advocate for respondent.

¶8

CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 10^th August, 2018

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶10

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel for parties finally with consent.

¶11

It is case of petitioner that complaint against petitioner has been lodged by respondent alleging certain unfair labour practices and the same is pending adjudication. Petitioner further purports to refer to that , inter alia, declaration is sought about closure being illegal.

¶12

Amount of full and final payment through cheque had

¶13

2 WP 8952/2018

¶14

been sent to workmen. It is contention of petitioner that members of the respondent had decided not to encash cheques. The cheques were deposited before the Industrial Court, Aurangabad.

¶15

Members of the respondent are stated to be facing financial crisis, they are stated to be constrained to show willingness to accept full and final amount without prejudice to their rights and accordingly application has been made by respondent before the Industrial Court.

¶16

It appears that on 12^th March, 2018 in response to aforesaid application 'say' had been filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel Mr Prabhakaran contends that after 'say' had been filed, hearing on application had been expected. However, on 12^th March, 2018 the order came to be passed and petitioner had no opportunity of hearing.

¶17

Learned counsel Mr Mule submits that on the 12^th March 2018 itself opportunity had been available to petitioner, however, it had not been availed. He submits that while order was passed on 12^th March, 2018, it was not protested. The same is borne out from the proceedings which had taken place on 12^th April, 2018 when extension had been sought. He tenders across application dated 12^th April 2018. Learned counsel for the respondent submits

¶18

3 WP 8952/2018

¶19

that while extension had been sought for implementation of the order, it had never been case of petitioner that it had not been heard on 12^th March, 2018. Petitioner now cannot come back taking benefit of its non-diligence. He submits that it is practice of petitioner to prolong decision making in the matter.

¶20

Perusal of paragraph No.1 of application dated 12^th April 2018 refers to that two months' extension for implementation of the order had been sought as petitioner had proposed to challenge the order in the High Court.

¶21

Perusal of order dated 12^th May, 2018 does not reflect upon as to whether any hearing had been granted to the petitioner. It only reflects upon that application had been moved, say had been filed and record had been perused.

¶22

In the circumstances, it appears to be in fitness of things since grievance is made about hearing of application Exhibit U-36 to remit the matter to Industrial Court.

¶23

In view of aforesaid, impugned order is set aside. Matter is remitted to Industrial Court for hearing afresh on application Exhibit U-36.

¶24

It is expected that the Industrial Court would proceed

¶25

4 WP 8952/2018

¶26

with hearing on application Exhibit U-36 as early as possible and decide the same within a period of four weeks from the receipt of writ of order of this court.

¶27

Rule made absolute accordingly.

¶28

( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH ) JUDGE.

¶29

Madkar

M/S Lumax Auto Technologies Ltd. Aurangabad through Plant Heard v. Aurangabad Majdoor Union through General Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Lumax Auto Technologies Ltd. Aurangabad through Plant Heard v. Aurangabad Majdoor Union through General Secretary

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

Kailan Baburao Jadhav and Others. Vs Shivaji Trukaram Kate and Others.

Vandana Parmeshwar Satpute Vs the Returning Officer and Tahsildar Beed and Another

Shivlal Shamlal Thakare Vs Tukaram Vithal Patil

Fakruzama Sayed Maheboob Vs Shaikh Mahemood Shaikh Chand and Others

Chitralekha Shankarrao Hiwrale Vs Ravisut Vyayam and Probodhan Shikshan Sanstha Aurangabad Thru President and Others

Ujwala M Shah through Gpa Mahendra M Shah Vs Chandravadan Vasantlal Bhandari and Others