Disposed

Maharashtra Navnirman Kamgar Sena Thr. Its Authorised Representative v. the Commissioner Nashik Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Aug 2024WP/113/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Union challenged an Industrial Court order refusing interim relief in its ULP complaint. The High Court declined to decide the interim-relief issue after a 10-month delay and instead requested the Industrial Court to expedite final hearing of Complaint (ULP) No.99 of 2022, keeping all merits points open.

What the court decided

AI extract

Maharashtra Navnirman Kamgar Sena Thr. Its… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Megha

¶2

45_wp_113_2024.docx

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.113 OF 2024

¶5

Maharashtra Navnirman Kamgar Sena through its authorised representative….Petitioner Tushar Pundalik Jagtap V/s.

¶6

The Commissioner, Nashik Municipal Corporation, Nashik and Anr. ….Respondents

¶7

Mr. Aumkar V. Joshi for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Yogendra M. Koli i/b. M/s. C.K. Legal for Respondent No.2.

¶9

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶10

DATED : 6 August 2024.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

The challenge in the present Petition is to the order dated 19 October 2023 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Nashik, rejecting application at Exhibit U-2 for interim relief.

¶13

MEGHA SHREEDHAR PARAB

¶14

Digitally signed byMEGHA SHREEDHAR PARAB Date: 2024.08.08 11:02:12 +0530

¶15

Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the Industrial Court has refused to believe submission on behalf of Petitioner-Union that relief is sought in the complaint only against Respondent No.2 and that no relief is sought against Respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation. Considering the fact that period of more than 10 months has passed from the date of rejection of application for interim relief as also alleged prevention of members of Petitioner-Union to perform duties for the last

¶16

___Page No.1 of 2 ___ 6 August 2024

¶17

Megha

¶18

45_wp_113_2024.docx

¶19

two years since 16 October 2022, in my view it would be appropriate if the main Complaint (ULP) No.99 of 2022 is taken up by the Industrial Court for final decision rather than this Court determining correctness of order dated 19 October 2023 at this distant of point of time. The Industrial Court is accordingly requested to expedite the hearing of Complaint (ULP) No.99 of 2022.

¶20

3) Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶21

While deciding the Complaint (ULP) No.99 of 2022 finally, the Industrial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in the order dated 19 October 2023 particularly with regard to the issue relating to jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint.

¶22

1. All points raised on merits in the Petition are kept open.

¶23

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

¶24

___Page No.2 of 2 ___ 6 August 2024

Maharashtra Navnirman Kamgar Sena Thr. Its Authorised Representative v. the Commissioner Nashik Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Maharashtra Navnirman Kamgar Sena Thr. Its Authorised Representative v. the Commissioner Nashik Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chandrakant Shinde vs the Chairman Maharashtra Gramin Bank and Anr.

Laxman B Utale vs Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust

Dayanand M Neman vs Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust

Apar Industries Limited vs Union of India through the Ministry of Railways

Erach Khavar vs Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt.Ltd

Shailesh Gandhi and 5 Ors. vs Maharashtra State Information Commission