Allowed

Prabhakar Jibhau Khairnar and Ors. v. M/S. Premium Tools Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Sept 2021IA/2254/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted an intervention application to add workers as necessary parties to a writ petition concerning payments under the Labour Commissioner's order, observing their presence is essential as any decision might adversely affect their interests.

What did the court decide?

Necessary amendments in the petition to add interveners-workers to be carried out and amended copy served on interveners.

Prabhakar Jibhau Khairnar and Ors. Vs M/S. Premium… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Digitally signed by PRASHANT PRASHANT VILAS VILAS RANE RANE Date: 2021.09.09 21:27:18 +0530

¶2

3-IA 2254-21 in wp 5354-21.doc

¶3

Prajakta Vartak

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

INTERVENTION APPLICATION NO.2254 OF 2021

¶6

IN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.5354 OF 2021

¶8

Prabhakar Jibhau Khairnar & Ors....Interveners
In the matter between
M/s.Premium Tools Pvt.Ltd. & Anr....Petitioners
V/s.
Shri.Kishor Mahale & Ors....Respondents

¶9

Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Bapu Deore for the Applicants/Interveners.
Ms.Avanti Inamdar with Mr.Ashwin Pimple i/b. Mr.Rameshwar Gite for
Petitioners.

¶10

Mr.C.D. Mali, AGP for the State.

¶11

C0RAM : G. S. KULKARNI, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 08, 2021

¶12

PC :

¶13

1. Having heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and having perused

¶14

the application, it is quite clear to me that any order which would be passed
by this court on the writ petition would adversely affect the interveners-

¶15

workers, who stand benefited by the impugned order passed by the Labour
Commissioner in regard to the payments to be made to them. Hence, the
interveners-workers are admittedly necessary parties to this petition, however,
for the reasons best known to the petitioner, the interveners-workers were not

¶16

impleaded as parties to the petition. The intervention is accordingly an
appropriate intervention.

¶17

1 / 2

¶18

3-IA 2254-21 in wp 5354-21.doc

¶19

2. For the above reasons, the intervention application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Necessary amendments in the petition be carried out on or before the adjourned date of hearing. Amended copy of the writ petition be served on the interveners.

¶20

3. Intervention application is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

¶21

(G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

¶22

2 / 2

Prabhakar Jibhau Khairnar and Ors. v. M/S. Premium Tools Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhakar Jibhau Khairnar and Ors. v. M/S. Premium Tools Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohankumar Nandlal Chauhan Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department and Ors.

F.N. Social, Educational Medical Charities Trust through Its Trustees Mr. L.S. Chinnappa and Anr. Vs Goel Ganga India Pvt. Ltd.through Its Director Mr Jayprakash Sitaram Goel and Ors.

M/S. Karia Builders Thr. Partner Vs Ms. Shobha Bhagde and Anr.

Mumbai Vidi- Tambakhu Vyapari Co-Op. Credit Soc. Ltd. (Mvtp) Vs Mrs. Bhagyashri Bhalchandra Khatu and Ors.

M/S. Santek Equipment Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Abhijit Mohanrao Shingare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.