Allowed

Ramesh Narayan Gilatar v. Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai through Its Commissioner

Bombay HC13 Dec 2024IA/2502/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Four petitioners whose writ petitions against termination by the Municipal Corporation were dismissed for default sought condonation of delay and restoration. The Court restored the petitions, permitted removal of office objections, and issued Rule to first decide whether the petitions are maintainable or whether the Labour Court is the appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; writ petitions restored subject to removing office objections by 10 January 2025; Rule issued on maintainability.

Ramesh Narayan Gilatar vs Brihan Mumbai Municipal… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE

¶2

Digitally signed by TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Date: 2024.12.17 11:04:10 +0530

¶3

Trupti 1 27-ia-2609-2024.odt

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2609 OF 2024 IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 19698 OF 2021

¶7

Gohil Kanta Ashok … Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Others … Respondents

¶10

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2494 OF 2024 IN

¶11

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 20013 OF 2021

¶12

Pradnesh Milind Jadhav … Applicant

¶13

versus

¶14

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Others … Respondents

¶15

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2502 OF 2024 IN

¶16

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 17629 OF 2021

¶17

Ramesh Narayan Gilatkar … Applicant

¶18

versus

¶19

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Others … Respondents

¶20

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2673 OF 2024 IN

¶21

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 19701 OF 2021

¶22

Jaya Shankar Palkar … Applicant

¶23

versus

¶24

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Others … Respondents

¶25

Trupti 2 27-ia-2609-2024.odt

¶26

Ms.Reshma Ravi i/b. K.P.Ravi and Co. for the Applicants/ Petitioners in all Interim Applications.

¶27

Ms.Shilpa Redkar for the Respondent – Municipal Corporation.

¶28

Smt.Vaishali Choudhari, Addl.GP for Respondent No. 4 -State in IA No.2609 of 2024.

¶29

Smt.Lavina Kriplani, AGP for Respondent No.4-State in IA No. 2494 of 2024.

¶30

Mr.Manish Gawade, AGP for Respondent No.4-State in IA No.2502 of 2024.

¶31

Ms.Vrushali Kabre, AGP for Respondent No. 4-State in IANo. 2673 of 2024.

¶32

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

¶33

DATE : 13^TH DECEMBER, 2024

¶34

P.C.:

¶35

The Writ Petitions were dismissed for non-removal of office

¶36

objections, after notice before admission was issued.

¶37

By these Interim Applications, the Petitioners pray that the delay be condoned, the Writ Petitions be restored and as the Corporation

¶38

has raised an issue as to whether these Writ Petitions are maintainable or

¶39

whether a ULP complaint under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair

¶40

Trupti 3 27-ia-2609-2024.odt

¶41

Labour Practices Act, 1971 (the Act of 1971) is maintainable, that the Petitioners pray that the Writ Petitions be admitted for a decision on whether this Court would have jurisdiction or whether the termination needs to be questioned and scrutinized before the Labour Court.

¶42

The learned Advocate for the Corporation has vehemently opposed the restoration of the Writ Petitions on the ground that there is a delay caused, the Writ Petitions were dismissed for default and ULP complaints before the Labour Court under the Act of 1971 or an industrial dispute under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act of 1947), would be an appropriate remedy.

¶43

We repeatedly asked the learned Advocate for the Petitioners as to whether they can approach the Labour Court, the learned Advocate for the Petitioners reiterated that these Writ Petitions be restored and the Writ Petitions be admitted by issuing Rule, initially to decide the issue of maintainability.

¶44

In view of the above and since the delay is not too large, these Interim Applications are allowed. The Writ Petitions are restored with liberty to remove the office objections, on or before 10^th January, 2025.

¶45

Trupti 4 27-ia-2609-2024.odt

¶46

Considering insistence of the Petitioners that they do not desire to approach the Labour Court and that this Court should admit these Petitions to first decide whether the Writ Petitions should be entertained, Rule. Respective Advocates waive service on Rule for the Respondents. Let the pleadings be completed.

¶47

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE,J.)

¶48

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

Ramesh Narayan Gilatar v. Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai through Its Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Narayan Gilatar v. Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai through Its Commissioner

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

Pradnya Narendra Kamble and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thru the Secretary, Dept. of School Edu. and Sports and Ors.

Shubhada Narayan Khatake and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary School Education Dept. and Ors.

Kailas Dhondibhau Nanekar and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. the Secretary School Education Dept. and Ors.

Priti Pradip Deshmukh vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Rural Development Dept. and Ors.

Bhagavat Sudhakar Patil vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Ravindra Premraj Patil vs Nashik Municipal Corporation and Ors.