Allowed

Sou. Rubina Rafiq Mulla v. Divisional Controller Msrtc and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Jul 2023WP/9049/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order whereby the Industrial Court set aside a Labour Court order without hearing the petitioner after his counsel died. The Bench allowed the writ, quashing the order and remanding the matter to the Industrial Court for a fresh hearing with an effective opportunity for the parties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order in Revision ULP No. 30 of 2018 quashed; matter restored for fresh hearing.

Sou. Rubina Rafiq Mulla Vs Divisional… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

20-WP9049-2022.DOC

¶2

Santosh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 9049 OF 2022

¶5

SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI

¶6

Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2023.07.19 10:11:03 +0530

¶7

Sou. Rubina Rafiq Mulla ...Petitioner Versus Divisional Controller MSRTC and anr. …Respondents

¶8

Mr. Suhas Inamdar, for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Y. P. Deshmukh, a/w Vaidehi Pradeep and Aditi Athawale, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶10

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED : 17^th JULY, 2023

¶11

PC:-

¶12

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶13

The petitioner employee takes exception to a judgment and order dated 8^th November, 2021 passed by the the learned Member, Industrial Court, Solapur, in Revision (ULP) No.30 of 2018 whereby the learned Member allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Solapur, on preliminary issue in Complaint (ULP) No.29 of 2014 that findings of the Enquiry Officer were not legal, fair and proper. In the process, the learned Member, Industrial Court, returned a finding that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were just and proper.

¶14

1/3

¶15

20-WP9049-2022.DOC

¶16

The principal ground of challenge in the petition is that the petitioner was not heard when the revision application came to be decided.

¶17

Today, an affidavit-in-rejoinder is tendered on behalf of the petitioner. It is, inter alia, affirmed that the learned Advocate for the petitioner, who represented the petitioner before the Revisional Court, had passed away before the matter could be heard by the learned Member, Industrial Court.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid state of affairs, Mr. Deshmukh, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, fairly submits that the petitioner deserves a fair opportunity of hearing before the Revisional Court.

¶19

The petition thus stands allowed.

¶20

The impugned order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, in Revision (ULP) No.30 of 2018 stands quashed and set aside.

¶21

Revision (ULP) No.30 of 2018 is restored to the file of the learned Member, Industrial Court, Solapur.

¶22

The learned Member is requested to decide the Revision afresh after providing an effective opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶23

2/3

¶24

20-WP9049-2022.DOC

¶25

The parties shall appear before the Revisional Court on 7^th

¶26

August, 2023.

¶27

No notice be issued to the parties.

¶28

[ N. J. JAMADAR, J. ]

¶29

3/3

Sou. Rubina Rafiq Mulla v. Divisional Controller Msrtc and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sou. Rubina Rafiq Mulla v. Divisional Controller Msrtc and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Savitra Ganpat Gade (Mahar) Decd Thru Lhrs Akkabai S Kamble Vs Vijay Bhau Gaikwad and Ors.

Kalpataru Properties (Thane) Private Limited Vs Late Balu (Balya) Deu Warli Decd. Thr. Lhr Prakash Laxman Dive and Ors.

Preston Francis Rodrigues and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Thr. Asst. Municipal Commissioner K/West Ward

Smita Balasaheb Madhawai Vs Bhausaheb Rupchand Madhawai and Ors.

Subhash Gulabchand Pawar Vs Maha. State Road Transport Corporation Ratnagiri Thr. Traffic Superintendent

M/S Sukhwani Developers Vs Pravin Sahebrao Jadhav