Allowed

Gohil Kanta Ashok v. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corp. of Gr. Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC6 Dec 2024IA/2609/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed interim applications to restore writ petitions dismissed for office objections, condoning the delay. The court admitted the petitions to decide the threshold issue of maintainability and jurisdiction, given the petitioners' insistence on not approaching the Labour Court.

What did the court decide?

Interim applications allowed; Writ Petitions restored with liberty to remove office objections on or before 10th January, 2025.

Gohil Kanta Ashok vs Brihanmumbai Municipal… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | 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.)

Gohil Kanta Ashok v. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corp. of Gr. Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gohil Kanta Ashok v. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corp. of Gr. Mumbai and 3 Ors.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manoj Rajaram Maule vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mayur S/O Maruti Gaikwad vs the State of Maharashtra Dept of Tribal Development and Ors.

Nilima Narendra Chavan vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Sec. School Education and Sports Dept and Ors.

Sushil Kumar Srivastava vs State of Maharashtra

Harsharaj Madhukar Jadhav vs Jt. Commissioner M.C.G.M. a and C Dept

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