Disposed

Solapur Mahanagar Palika Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Karmachari Sanghatana through Shri Shrishail Chandr v. Commissioner Solapur Mahanagare Palika Indrabhuvan Solapur

Bombay HC18 Oct 2023RPW/85/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review Petition to correct a factual error in the earlier dismissal order, specifically the statement that no proceedings were pending before lower courts. Court deleted the incorrect sentence and directed disposal of the pending complaint within six months.

What did the court decide?

Deletion of incorrect sentence regarding pendency of proceedings; direction to Industrial Court to dispose of Complaint No. 27/2018 within six months.

Solapur Mahanagar Palika Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

10. CIVIL RPW-85-2023.doc

¶2

R.M. AMBERKAR (Private Secretary)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

REVIEW PETITION NO. 85 OF 2023 IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 3223 OF 2021

¶7

Solapur Mahanagar Palika,

¶8

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Karmachari Sanghatana .. Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

Commissioner, Solapur Mahanagar Palika & Anr. .. Respondents

¶11

Mr. Prashant Kamble for Petitioner

¶12

Mr. S.T. Bhosale i/by Mr. Dilip Bodake for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2

¶13

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : OCTOBER 18, 2023

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1. Heard Mr. Kamble, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr.

¶16

Bhosale, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶17

2. Present Review Petition seeks correction and modification of

¶18

the contents recorded in paragraph No. 11 of the order of dismissal / disposal of WP No. 3223 of 2021 passed on 22.08.2023.

¶19

3. Mr. Kamble would submit that it is an admitted position that Complaint (ULP) No. 27/2018 filed under the provisions of Section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 is pending before the Industrial Court and in that view of the matter, reference to the fact that at present no proceedings are therefore pending before any of the two

¶20

1 of 2

¶21

10. CIVIL RPW-85-2023.doc

¶22

lower Courts is incorrect. He therefore seeks deletion of that sentence in the later part of the sentence appearing in paragraph No. 11 of the order.

¶23

4. Mr. Kamble is right in his contention. In view of the correct facts recorded in the said order, reference to the words “…...at present no proceedings are therefore pending before any of the two Lower Courts” is deleted. The said words be deleted and fresh copy of the order be uploaded.

¶24

5. At the request of Mr. Kamble, learned Industrial Court hearing Complaint (ULP) No. 27 of 2018 is directed by this Court to dispose of the same preferably within a period of six months from today, strictly in accordance with law.

¶25

6. With the above directions, Review Petition is disposed.

¶26

Amberkar

¶27

Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA MOHAN MOHAN AMBERKAR AMBERKAR Date: 2023.10.20 18:34:06 +0530

¶28

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶29

2 of 2

Solapur Mahanagar Palika Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Karmachari Sanghatana through Shri Shrishail Chandr v. Commissioner Solapur Mahanagare Palika Indrabhuvan Solapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Solapur Mahanagar Palika Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Karmachari Sanghatana through Shri Shrishail Chandr v. Commissioner Solapur Mahanagare Palika Indrabhuvan Solapur

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

Dattatraya Nirmal and Anr. Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation and Ors.

Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Vs Gharda Chemicals Ltd.

Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Vs Gharda Chemicals Ltd.

Solapur Mahanagar Palika Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Karmachari Sanghatana through Shri Shrishail Chandr Vs Commissioner Solapur Mahanagare Palika Indrabhuvan Solapur

Shri. Shantilal Balkishan Jain vs Smt.Shakuntala Yadav Kothmire and Ors.

Pen Municipal Council vs Assistant Provindent Fund Commissioner