Dismissed

Nagpur Zilla Nutan Dugda Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha, through Its President v. Sanjay S/O Gulabrao Nimbalkar and Another

Bombay HC27 Feb 2019WP/920/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge bench dismissed a writ petition challenging an Industrial Court order that upheld a Labour Court rejection of condonation of delay and restoration application. The bench directed the Industrial Court to dispose of a separate pending revision within two months regarding non-reinstatement.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000 payable by petitioner to respondent; direction to Industrial Court to dispose of pending revision within two months.

Nagpur Zilla Nutan Dugda Utpadak Sahakari… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 wp920.19

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 920/2019

¶4

Nagpur Zilla Nutan Dugda Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha, Saoner

¶5

..VS..

¶6

Sanjay S/o Gulabrao Nimbalkar & anr.

¶7

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

¶8

- - - - Shri V.D. Raut, Advocate for the petitioner Shri J.L. Bhoot, Advocate for the respondent no. 1

¶9

CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J. DATED : 27/02/2019

¶10

Heard.

¶11

The complaint filed by the respondent no. 1 – employee under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971 (for short “the Act of 1971”) was allowed by the Labour Court by the order dated 05/04/2003. This order was passed ex-parte against the present petitioner. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 31 (2) of the Act of 1971 before the Labour Court praying that the order dated 05/04/2003 be set aside and the complaint be restored and decided on merits. As there was delay of about 37 days in filing the application under Section 31 (2) of the Act of 1971, the petitioner had filed an application praying for condonation of delay. The application praying for condonation of delay and the application under Section 31 (2) of the Act of 1971 were dismissed by the Labour Court by the order dated 18/02/2011. This order was challenged by

¶12

2 wp920.19

¶13

the petitioner in revision before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court has dismissed the revision by the impugned order. The Industrial Court has recorded that the application under Section 31 (2) of the Act of 1971 is required to be filed within 30 days and there is no provision which enables the Labour Court to condone the delay. The conclusions of the Industrial Court are in consonance with the judgment given by this Court in the case of Anand Shivram Samant vs. Kasai Nerolac Paints Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2016 I CLR at page

¶14

88 .

¶15

I see no reason to interfere with the impugned

¶16

order.

¶17

The writ petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent no. 1.

¶18

The receipt showing that the amount of costs is paid to the respondent no. 1 shall be produced on record of this petition within one month.

¶19

The learned advocate for the respondent no. 1 – employee has submitted that the respondent no. 1 – employee is still not reinstated as per the order passed by the Labour Court on 05/04/2003. It is submitted that the respondent no. 1 – employee had filed application under Section 48 of the Act of 1971 and though the application is allowed and the President of the petitioner – Society is convicted, the respondent no. 1 – employee is not yet reinstated.

¶20

The learned advocate for the petitioner has not been able to counter the factual aspects except pointing out that the revision application is filed against the order passed

¶21

3 wp920.19

¶22

by the Labour Court under Section 48 of the Act of 1971. It is pointed out that the Industrial Court has not stayed the order passed by the Labour Court under Section 48 of the Act of 1971.

¶23

The Industrial Court is directed to dispose the revision application filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Labour Court under Section 48 of the Act of 1971, within two months.

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

Ansari

Nagpur Zilla Nutan Dugda Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha, through Its President v. Sanjay S/O Gulabrao Nimbalkar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagpur Zilla Nutan Dugda Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha, through Its President v. Sanjay S/O Gulabrao Nimbalkar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sou. Indudevi W/O Shankar Verma Vs Sou. Janaki Devi W/O Chandrabali Yadav

Sou. Indudevi W/O Shankar Verma Vs Sou. Janaki Devi W/O Chandrabali Yadav

Parwa Education Society, Thr. Its Secretary, Shri Jawahar @ Annasaheb S/O Tranbakrao Deshmukh and 1 Vs Suresh Govindrao Bhure and 3 Others

Rahul S/O Babanrao Kulkarni Vs Sau. Jyoti Rahul Kulkarni

Shri. Sudhakar S/O Gajananrao Bhelonde and Another Vs Shri. Vijay Kumar S/O Gajanan Bhelonde and Another

Mrs. Alaukika W/O Shrirang Deogade Vs Kishor S/O Ghanshyam Gour