Allowed

Mahendra Hiraman Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC2 Nov 2020WP/1110/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a group of writ petitions challenging termination orders, the High Court allowed the writs. The court set aside termination orders upon the respondent withdrawing them and the petitioners waiving back-wages to a certain extent. The court directed the respondent to pay a fixed monthly amount as back-wages and joined duties for the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Termination orders set aside as withdrawn; direction to pay Rs. 7,500 per month as back-wages; direction to re-join duties on prescribed dates; acceptance of withdrawal of contempt petitions.

Mahendra Hiraman Chavan Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

1 wp 1110.20+

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1110 OF 2020

¶4

MAHENDRA HIRAMAN CHAVAN

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner:
Mr. B. L. Sagar Killarikar

¶8

AGP for Respondents/State: Mr. K. B. Jadhavar
Advocate for Respondents No. 7 to 9: Mr. V. D.
Hon, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. A. V. Hon

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 1127 OF 2020

¶10

VIJAY NATHA AADE

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶13

Advocate for Petitioner:
Mr. B. L. Sagar Killarikar

¶14

AGP for Respondents/State: Mr. K. B. Jadhavar
Advocate for Respondents No. 7 to 9: Mr. V. D.
Hon, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. A. V. Hon

¶15

WRIT PETITION NO. 1122 OF 2020

¶16

UDDHAV PURUSHOTTAM BIDWAI

¶17

VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶18

Advocate for Petitioner:
Mr. B. L. Sagar Killarikar

¶19

AGP for Respondents/State: Mr. K. B. Jadhavar
Advocate for Respondents No. 7 to 9: Mr. V. D.
Hon, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. A. V. Hon

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO. 1114 OF 2020
SACHIN SAWALIRAM DANGE

¶21

VERSUS

¶22

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶23

2 wp 1110.20+

¶24

Advocate for Petitioner:
Mr. B. L. Sagar Killarikar

¶25

AGP for Respondents/State: Mr. K. B. Jadhavar
Advocate for Respondents No. 7 to 9: Mr. V. D.
Hon, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. A. V. Hon

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO. 1128 OF 2020
ANIL GOVINDRAO KALE

¶27

VERSUS

¶28

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶29

Advocate for Petitioner:
Mr. B. L. Sagar Killarikar

¶30

AGP for Respondents/State: Mr. K. B. Jadhavar
Advocate for Respondents No. 7 to 9: Mr. V. D.
Hon, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. A. V. Hon

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO. 13897 OF 2019 SHAIKH BASHIR SHAIKH ABDUL

¶32

VERSUS

¶33

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶34

Advocate for Petitioner:

¶35

Mr. B. L. Sagar Killarikar

¶36

AGP for Respondents/State: Mr. K. B. Jadhavar
Advocate for Respondents No. 7 to 9: Mr. V. D.
Hon, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. A. V. Hon

¶37

WRIT PETITION NO. 12830 OF 2019

¶38

ANIL GOVINDRAO KALE AND OTHERS

¶39

VERSUS

¶40

MAHARASHTRA ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING AND EDUCATION
RESEARCH, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR AND OTHERS

¶41

Advocate for Petitioner:

¶42

Mr. B. L. Sagar Killarikar

¶43

AGP for Respondents/State: Mr. K. B. Jadhavar
Advocate for Respondent No. 2: Mr. V. D. Hon,
Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. A. V. Hon

¶44

3 wp 1110.20+

¶45

WRIT PETITION NO. 2079 OF 2020
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2919 OF 2020
ANIL APPARAO KOLTE
VERSUS

¶46

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶47

…
Advocate for Petitioner:
Mr. P. R. Patil

¶48

AGP for Respondents/State: Mr. K. B. Jadhavar
Advocate for Respondents No. 4 & 5: Mr. V. D. Hon,
Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. A. V. Hon

¶49

CORAM:S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
R. G. AVACHAT, JJ.

¶50

DATE:02nd NOVEMBER, 2020

¶51

PER COURT:

¶52

1.These group of writ petitions are filed by

¶53

the employees against the management challenging
orders of termination.

¶54

2.We have heard Mr. Sagar Killarikar, learned
Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Hon, learned
Senior Advocate for the respondents.

¶55

3.After hearing the matter for some time, the

¶56

deliberation took place as to whether the
management would withdraw the orders of

¶57

termination and the petitioners would waive back-
wages to some extent.

¶58

4 wp 1110.20+

¶59

4.Mr. Sagar Killarikar, the learned counsel
submits that the petitioners would waive 50% of
the back-wages whereas Mr. Hon, learned Senior
Advocate upon instructions submits that the
respondent would withdraw the termination orders,
however it would not be possible to pay the back-
wages because of the lock-down and the financial
stringencies faced by the respondent. According to
Mr. Sagar Killarikar, learned counsel for the
petitioners, the balance sheet of the institution
does not suggest that the respondent is facing
financial crisis.

¶60

5.We need not enter into such debate. The grant
of back-wages would be discretionary.

¶61

6.Considering the gesture on the part of the
respondent of withdrawing the termination orders
and also the gesture on the part of the
petitioners that they are ready to waive the back-
wages to some extent, we pass the following order.

¶62

5 wp 1110.20+

¶63

7.The orders of termination passed against the
petitioners by the respondent stands set aside as
withdrawn.

¶64

8.The respondent / management shall pay the
petitioners Rs.7,500/- per month towards
back-wages from 10.08.2019 till today. The
petitionerscanre-jointheduties

¶65

from 03.11.2020.

¶66

9.Mr. Sagar Killarikar, the learned counsel for
the petitioners, on instructions, submits that
upon the petitioners joining their duties; the
petitioners would withdraw the contempt petitions
filed against the respondent / management and
their office bearers bearing Contempt Petition
No. 758 of 2019 and Contempt Petition No. 12861 of
2019. The statement is accepted.

¶67

10.The amount of arrears at the rate of 7,500/-
from 10.08.2019 till date shall be paid by the
respondent to the petitioners within one (01)
month from today.

¶68

6 wp 1110.20+

¶69

11.Writ Petitions stand disposed of in above
terms. The Civil Application also stands disposed
of.

¶70

[R. G. AVACHAT, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶71

marathe

Mahendra Hiraman Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Hiraman Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Ajay Deep Construction Private Limited through Its Authorized Signatory Ajit Laxmanbhai Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Azizkhan Yusufkhan Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Santosh Potanna Goskulwad Vs the State of Maharastra and Others

Vaibhav Baban Rankhamb Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Lalit Shivdas Chaure Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shree Swami Samarth Bahuddeshiya Sansthas Savitribai Phule Nursing School at Kannad Anm and Gnm Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others