Disposed

Babulal Akaramji Ingle v. Shri Shivaji Education Society Amravati Thr. Its Secretary and Another

Bombay HC13 Sept 2023WP/1714/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, disposed of a writ petition challenging compulsory retirement. Instead of adjudicating on merits, the court directed the petitioner to file a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 within one month.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted one month to file a complaint under Section 28 of the 1971 Act; points kept open for Labour Court.

Babulal Akaramji Ingle Vs Shri Shivaji… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-NAG:13754-DB

¶2

1 37.wp.1714.21.odt

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1714/2021

¶5

Babulal Akaramji Ingle Vs. Shri Shivaji Education Society, Amravati and Anr.

¶6

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

¶7

........................................................................................................................................……….. Mr. S.Zia Quazi, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Abhay Sambre, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶8

CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR AND MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI,JJ.. DATED : 13.09.2023

¶9

. The challenge raised in the present Writ Petition is to the order dated 07.12.2020 by which the petitioner who was serving as Peon at the respondent No.2 – Institution has been compulsorily retired from service.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that a statutory remedy of filing a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 is available to the petitioner for challenging the order dated 07.12.2020 by which the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service.

¶11

In the aforesaid facts since a remedy is available to the petitioner and the impugned order has been passed after holding departmental enquiry, the interest of justice would be served by passing the following order :

¶12

i. If within a period of one month from today the petitioner files a complaint under Section 28 of the Act of 1971 for challenging the order dated 07.12.2020, the complaint shall be entertained

¶13

2 37.wp.1714.21.odt

¶14

on merits without going into the question of delay since the present Writ Petition was filed on 14.01.2021.

¶15

ii. The Labour Court shall consider the complaint on its own merits by following the prescribed procedure.

¶16

iii. All points raised in the Writ Petition as well as in the reply are kept open for being raised before the Labour Court.

¶17

The Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid

¶18

terms.

¶19

( MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI , J.)

¶20

RGurnule

Babulal Akaramji Ingle v. Shri Shivaji Education Society Amravati Thr. Its Secretary and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babulal Akaramji Ingle v. Shri Shivaji Education Society Amravati Thr. Its Secretary and Another

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

Purushottam S/O Pandurang Sonkusare Vs State of Maha. Thr. Secy., Ministry of Tribal Welfare and Social Justice Dept., Mumbai and Others

Shikshan Vikas Mandir, Kuralpurna, Thr. Its President and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Secretary, Education and Sport Department, Mumbai and Another

Ramesh Gangaram Wankhede and 2 Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Urban Land Development, Mumbai and 3 Oth

Mrinall Shashi Shekhar Vs the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Thr. the Administrator, Nagpur and Another

Waman S/O Pandurang Rabade Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Another

Sau. Vandana Shyam Chawhan Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development, Mumbai and Another