Disposed

Gogia Interiors Anr. v. Shramjivi Kamgar Union

Bombay HC10 Jun 2024WP/1026/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an interim order directing payment of earned wages in a ULP complaint. Having deposited 75% of the wages with an undertaking to deposit the balance 25%, they agreed to time-bound disposal of the complaint. The High Court disposed of the petition without deciding merits, keeping all contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order declared complied with; deposits to be transferred to Industrial Court to abide by final award; time-bound disposal requested; no costs.

Gogia Interiors Anr. vs Shramjivi Kamgar Union — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

902-WP-1026-2024.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1026 OF 2024

¶5

M/s. Gogia Interiors & Anr. …Petitioners Versus Shramjivi Kamgar Union …Respondent

¶6

Mr. Manoj Gujar a/w. Mr. Manas Gawankar a/w. Mr. Prithviraj Singh, Advocates, for the Petitioners.

¶7

Mr. Sudeshkumar Naidu a/w. Mr. T. R. Yadav, Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocates, i/b. C. R. Naidu & Co., for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 25^th JUNE 2024

¶9

P. C.:

¶10

Heard Mr. Gawankar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and

¶11

Mr. Gujar, learned Counsel for the Respondent yesterday extensively.

¶12

The operative part of the impugned Order dated 19^th September 2022 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai below Exhibit-U-2 in Complaint (ULP) No.295 of 2018

¶13

reads as follows:

¶14

“ O R D E R

¶15

i) The Application vide Exhibit U-2 is hereby partly allowed i.e. only in respect of clause No.2 of prayer clause of interim relief application.

Page 1 of 5

Sonali

902-WP-1026-2024.DOC

ii) Respondents are directed to pay earned wages of the member-employees of Complainant Union for the period June 2018 to August 2018, whose names are mentioned in Annexure-A of the Complaint, within 2 1/2 months from the date of this Order or deposit it within the said period before this Court.

¶20

iii) No order as to cost.”

¶21

(Emphasis added)

¶22

On 29^th November 2022, a learned Single Judge (Coram: Nitin W. Sambre, J.) has passed the following order in this Writ Petition:

¶23

“1. The order impugned dated 19/09/2022 passed below Exhibit U-2 by the Industrial Court at Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No. 295 of 2018.

¶24

The claim in the complaint alleging unfair labour practice was that of earned wages for the month of June to August, 2018 were not paid. The Industrial Court has noticed that there is no specific denial and as such, proceeded to direct the petitioneremployer to pay the earned wages .

¶25

It is claimed that the order impugned granting interim relief is based on the appreciation of pleadings as to the absence of specific denial of such liability. It is also claimed that the interim relief is granted, which is in the form of final relief as is claimed in clause (b) in the complaint .

¶26

There appears to be substance in the submissions .

Page 2 of 5

Sonali

902-WP-1026-2024.DOC

Issue notice to the respondent, returnable on 10/01/2023.

¶31

In the meantime, the petitioners are directed to deposit 75% of the amount of earned wages as is directed vide impugned order alongwith detailed calculations within a period of two weeks from today.

¶32

7. Subject to aforesaid compliance, there shall be no coercive action against the petitioners. ”

¶33

(Emphasis added)

¶34

Thus, 75% of the earned wages as directed vide impugned Order dated 19^th September 2022 are deposited in this Court. Mr. Gawankar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners on instructions states that the Petitioners are ready and willing to deposit balance 25% of the amount of earned wages in this Court as directed by the impugned order along with detailed calculation within a period of two weeks from today. Said statement made by Mr. Gawankar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners on instructions is accepted as an undertaking given to this Court. In view of the said statement, the interest of the workers is completely protected.

¶35

Both the learned Counsel state that instead of deciding the point of law raised in the Petition, in the interest of justice, the said

Page 3 of 5

Sonali

902-WP-1026-2024.DOC

Complaint (ULP) No.295 of 2018 be directed to be finally disposed of in a time bound manner.

¶40

Accordingly, the Writ Petition can be disposed of by passing the following order:

¶41

O R D E R

¶42

i. As the Petitioners have already deposited 75% amount of the earned wages as directed by the impugned Order dated 19^th September 2022 in this Court pursuant to order of learned Single Judge dated 29^th November 2022 and as Mr. Gawankar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has made statement that balance 25% amount will be deposited in this Court within a period of two weeks from today, therefore, the impugned Order dated 19^th September 2022 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, below Exhibit-U-2 in Complaint (ULP) No.295 of 2018 is complied with.

¶43

ii. The amount which has been already deposited in this Court i.e. 75% amount and balance amount i.e. 25% which will be deposited in this Court within a period of two weeks be

Page 4 of 5

Sonali

902-WP-1026-2024.DOC

transferred to the Court of Industrial Court, Mumbai within four weeks thereafter.

¶48

iii. Learned Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai is requested to dispose of Complaint (ULP) No.295 of 2018 on or before 30^th April 2025 .

¶49

iv. Needless to mention that the amount deposited in this Court (which will be transferred to the Industrial Court, Mumbai) shall abide by the final Award which is to be passed in Complaint (ULP) No.295 of 2018.

¶50

It is clarified that this Court has not considered the merits

¶51

and all contentions on merits are expressly kept open.

¶52

The Writ Petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.

¶53

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶54

Digitally signed by SONALI SONALI MILIND MILIND PATIL PATIL Date: 2024.06.25 18:44:03 +0530

¶55

Page 5 of 5

¶56

Sonali

Gogia Interiors Anr. v. Shramjivi Kamgar Union

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gogia Interiors Anr. v. Shramjivi Kamgar Union

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vibhushan Estates Private Limited vs District Deputy Registrar Co. Op Societies Mumbai -Iv and the Competent Authority

Om Siddhivinayak Sahakari Gruh Nirman Proposed Society vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority Th. Its Chief Executive Officer

Sudeep Vijaybant Singh vs State of Maharashtra

Garodia Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. vs District Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Society (2), Eastern Suburbs, Mumbai

The Whispering Palms vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited vs Sahara India Kamgar Sanghatana