The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Industrial Court order interpreting benefits for female hostellers. The Court held the original order was enforceable and the Labour Court correctly established que capacity to quantify the benefit.
Writ petition dismissed; no specific relief granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp-2803.17.odt
sbw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2803 OF 2017
D. Y. Patil College Engineering and
Technology, Kolhapur & Anr. .. Petitioners
Vs.
Smt. Mangal Shripati Injulkar & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. A.V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate, I/b. Sandeep S. Koregave for the petitioners.
Mr. Meelan Topkar for the respondents.
CORAM : A.K. MENON, J. DATED : 12TH MARCH, 2019.
P.C. :
1/8
wp-2803.17.odt
on par with male peons working with the respondents. The order passed in Complaint (ULP)no.317 of 1997 was thereafter impugned in Writ Petition (st)no.29508 of 2009 and the Application (IDA) in which the order impugned in this petition was passed under Section 33 C(2) consequent upon the aforesaid order dated 31st August, 2009.
2/8
wp-2803.17.odt
or the benefits due to a workman. The respondents could thus claim benefits capable of being computed and also arrears of wages, salary or other allowance which have been withheld.
3/8
wp-2803.17.odt
not be stated to be final. He submitted that the Labour Court could not have taken up the complaint under Section 33C(2) in entertaining the complaint. He submitted that there was no pre-existing right in favour of the workmen and the respondents were not entitled to benefits that have been now claimed by them.
4/8
wp-2803.17.odt
was made by the Advocate representing the present petitioners and this aspect has been considered by the Industrial Court on page 23 of the order whereby after making the specific reference in paragraph 13 and after dealing with the merits of these contentions the Industrial Court concluded that the Standard Code will apply to class-IV employees including the respondents who fell in the category of nonteaching staff.
than nine years.
5/8
wp-2803.17.odt
6/8
wp-2803.17.odt
writ petition was dismissed. An application moved for restoration of the writ petition came to be withdrawn. Meanwhile, between 21st December, 2010 and 2nd April, 2011 the petitioners took adjournments to file written statement before the Labour Court. Finally in July 2011 a “No WS” order came to be passed. Attempts were made to recall this order, that was allowed and the written statement was filed in December 2011. Thereafter issues were framed and the matter was heard from time to time. Furthermore, difference in salaries was established by leading evidence in 2014. The civil application seeking restoration of the rejected writ petition was also disposed. This civil application was withdrawn on 13th November, 2017. In the meantime, the evidence in the matter concluded. It is in these circumstances that the Labour Court has passed the order impugned in this writ petition.
1 2005(4) Bom.C.R. 319
2 1981 (2) SCC 788
7/8
Advocate had defaulted in his appearance resulting in dismissal of the appeal and the Supreme Court permitted costs of the appeal to be recovered from the Advocate who absented himself. These decisions have no bearing on the facts of the case presently under consideration.
wadhwa
8/8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Labour Court could correctly compute the monetary value of benefits under Section 33C(2) despite an ongoing challenge to the original Industrial Court order.
Whether the delay in enforcing the initial order affected the entitlement of the workmen to claimed arrears.
Whether the High Court should set aside the impugned order of the Labour Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Annasaheb Virupaksha Bidre v/s. Dada Tatoba Patil & OthersReferred¶40
Annasaheb Virupaksha Bidre v/s. Dada Tatoba Patil & Others, 2005(4) Bom.C.R. 319 · Who else cites this
Rafiq & Anr. v/s. Munshilal & Anr.Distinguished¶40
Rafiq & Anr. v/s. Munshilal & Anr., 1981 (2) SCC 788 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
D. Y. Patil College Engineering and Technology, Kolhapur
Mangal Shripati Injulkar
A.K. Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
