Municipal Council, Hinganghat, Wardha Thr. Its Chief Officer v. Rauf Khan S/O Ajiz Khan

Bombay HC21 Nov 2024WP/2308/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified an order of the Industrial Court regarding recovery of monetary benefits owed to a respondent under the Maharashtra RTU Act. The Court reduced the payable amount significantly and allowed the petitioner to withdraw the deposited stay money plus interest, directing a nominal sum as remittable relief.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to pay Rs. 59,774/- to respondent within two months; petitioner permitted to withdraw deposited Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest; impugned order modified to reflect changes.

Municipal Council, Hinganghat, Wardha Thr… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 50-wp-2308-24.odt

¶2

2024:BHC-NAG:14191

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (WP) No. 2308 of 2024

¶5

Municipal Council, Hinganghat through its Chief Officer, Hinganghat, District Wardha

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rauf Khan S/o Ajiz Khan

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶9

Shri M.I.Dhatrak, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.V.Sohoni, Advocate for the respondent.

¶10

CORAM : N.R.BORKAR, J. DATED : 21^st NOVEMBER, 2024.

¶11

This petition takes exception to the order

¶12

dated 30^th January, 2024 passed by the Industrial Court,

¶13

Nagpur in Misc. (ULP) (Recovery) No. 11 of 2022.

¶14

By order dated 6^th September, 2013 in Complaint (ULP) No. 536 of 1999 and 537 of 1999, the learned Industrial Court, Nagpur, directed the present petitioner to regularize the services of respondent and further directed to pay the monetary benefits from the date of order. In terms of the said

¶15

SKNair

¶16

2 50-wp-2308-24.odt

¶17

order the petitioner-Municipal Council has regularised

¶18

the services of the respondent vide resolution dated 27^th

¶19

June, 2017.

¶20

By the order impugned the learned Industrial Court has allowed the application filed by respondent under Section 50 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 and directed the present petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.19,79,094/- to the respondent towards monetary benefits.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the directions were to pay the monetary benefits, from the date of order, however, the learned Industrial Court by the impugned order has directed to pay the monetary benefits from the date of filing of the complaint. It is submitted that the impugned order to that extent needs to be quashed and set aside.

¶23

SKNair

¶24

3 50-wp-2308-24.odt

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel for the

¶26

respondent has supported the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has however, not disputed the fact that the direction to pay the monetary benefits were from the date of order and not from the date of filing of the complaint.

¶27

On 16^th April, 2024, this Court had passed the following order.

¶28

Issue notice for final disposal to the respondent, returnable on 20/06/2024.

¶29

The petitioner is permitted to serve the respondent by private mode, in addition to regular mode of service, including service on the lawyer appearing before the trial Court and file affidavit of service by next date, failing which the petitioner shall deposit costs of Rupees Five Hundred with High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the learned Industrial Court while allowing the complaint filed by the respondent granted monetary benefits from the date of the order i.e. 06/09/2013, whereas vide impugned order the Recovery Certificate is issued for the amount shown to be payable by the petitioner from May, 1999. It is submitted that if the monetary benefits are calculated from the date of the judgment of the Industrial Court, the amount comes to Rs.5,59,774/-.

¶31

In the circumstances, there shall be ad-interim stay to the impugned order dated 30/01/2024 passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur in Misc. Application (ULP) No. 11 of 2022, until further orders, subject to

¶32

SKNair

¶33

4 50-wp-2308-24.odt

¶34

deposit of Rupees Five Lakhs in this Court, within four weeks from today.

¶35

The office objections, if any, be removed before the returnable date.

¶36

In terms of the above order, the petitioner

¶37

has deposited the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in this Court.

¶38

Considering the overall circumstances the following order is passed.

¶39

(i) Respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner in this Court, with accrued interest, if any.

¶40

(ii) The petitioner shall pay Rs.59,774/- to the respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶41

(iii) The order impugned shall stand modified to

¶42

the above extent.

¶43

(iv) The writ petition is disposed of in aforesaid

¶44

terms.

¶45

SKNair

Municipal Council, Hinganghat, Wardha Thr. Its Chief Officer v. Rauf Khan S/O Ajiz Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Municipal Council, Hinganghat, Wardha Thr. Its Chief Officer v. Rauf Khan S/O Ajiz Khan

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

Similar cases

The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Mul, Chandrapur Vs Vinod S/O Arunrao Yenurkar and Others

Naresh S/O Chandumal Jotwani Vs Naresh S/O Sadashivrao Karwatkar and Anothe

Wine Corner, Amravati Thr. Proprietor, Shri. Vijay Kumar Gulabchand Bhamore and Anr. Vs State of Maha., Thr. the Principal Secy., Dept. of State Excise, Mumbai and Ors.

Shri. Rajesh Shyambhadur Singh and Another Vs Shri. Kiran Shantaya Chenaveni and Others

Sajid Ahmed Kamruddin vs the State of Maharashtra

Municipal Council, Hinganghat, Wardha Thr. Its Chief Officer Vs Abdul Salim S/O Abdul Matin