Dismissed

Zilla Parishad, Gondia through Chief Executive Officer and Another v. Lalitkumar S/O Kawlu Shahare

Bombay HC18 Dec 2024WP/3441/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Nagpur dismissed two writ petitions filed by Zilla Parishad Gondia challenging an Industrial Court order directing payment of wages and directed remission of any deposited funds to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed; deposited amount be remitted to the petitioner after eight weeks.

What the court decided

Zilla Parishad, Gondia through Chief Executive… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

(1) 14wp3441.3442.21

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3441/2021

¶4

Zilla Parishad Gondia, through its CEO & anr .Vs. Shri Lalitkumar Kawlu Shahare AND

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3442/2021

¶6

Zilla Parishad Gondia, through its CEO & anr. .Vs. Shri Inspat Janbaji Shivankar

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

None for the petitioners.

¶9

Mr. V. A. Lohia, Advocate instructed by Mr. A. S. Shukla, Advocate for respondent in W.P.No.3441.

¶10

Mr. A. A. Vastani, Advocate for respondent in W.P.No.3442/21

¶11

CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE, J. DATE : DECEMBER 18, 2024

¶12

On 09.09.2021, following order was passed.

¶13

“Heard Mr. Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶14

The petition challenges the order dated 27.01.2020 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Bhandara in Misc. U.L.P. Case No. 2/2019, an application under Section 50 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Laws Practices Act, 1971, in which, learned Industrial Court directed the petitioner / employer to pay an amount of Rs.14,79,038/- within a period of three months to the respondent.

¶15

Mr Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that an admission as to the receipt of an amount of Rs.4,87,000/-, given by the respondents in his crossexamination, has not been properly construed by the learned Industrial Court in the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order indicates in para 8 thereof the learned Industrial Court has found that in respect to the above so called admission, the petitioners have neither pleaded nor put any question to the respondents as to on what account or under what caption the said amount was to be accounted for, and therefore, held that the same could not be construed as being a part of the wages.

¶16

Mr. Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the entire payment due and payable has already been paid to demonstrate which he placed reliance upon certain documents at Annexure P – 4 to P – 6, however, these documents were never put before the Industrial Court,

¶17

(2) 14wp3441.3442.21

¶18

in view of which its consideration now would be questionable. However, considering the contention issue notice to the respondents, returnable in three weeks.

¶19

In order to show the bonafides, if the difference in amount between Rs.14,79,038/- and Rs. 4,87,000/- which comes to Rs.9,92,038/- is deposited in this Court by the petitioners within three weeks from today, there shall be a stay to be effect and implementation of the judgment dated 27.1.2020 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Bhandara in Misc. ULP Case No. 2/2019.

¶20

It is made clear that, if the amount is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the stay as granted above shall automatically stand vacated without any further orders being required to be passed in that regard.”

¶21

None appears for the petitioner. Experience shows that in the matters of Zilla Parishads, it is common that the counsel do not appear. Be that as it may, order dated 09.09.2021 is indicative of the fact that the petitioners have no case.

¶22

In view of above and since none appeared for the petitioner, the petition is dismissed for the reasons noted in order dated 09.09.2021. The amount deposited by the petitioner be remitted to the petitioner after eight weeks from today.

¶23

Copy of the order be served upon Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gondia for taking appropriate steps, if so advised, which the petitioner shall take within eight weeks from today.

¶24

No order as to costs.

¶25

(Anil L. Pansare, J.)

¶26

Kahale

Zilla Parishad, Gondia through Chief Executive Officer and Another v. Lalitkumar S/O Kawlu Shahare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Zilla Parishad, Gondia through Chief Executive Officer and Another v. Lalitkumar S/O Kawlu Shahare

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

Sanjay S/O. Anandrao Chambhare and Another Vs Vitthal S/O. Zinguji Fating and Another

Arifur Rahaman Aminur Rahaman Sheikh Vs Godumal S/O Sirumal Sindhi @ Godumal S/O Sirumal Rawalani

Dattu Ramaji Sahare and Other Vs Kamlabai W/O Natthuji Pote and Another

Subhash S/0 Gulabrao Yeolekar, vs Raju S/O Dnyaneshwar Gafat

Zilla Parishad, Gondia Thr. Its Chief Executive Officer and Another Vs Shri Inspat S/O Janbaji Shivankar

Nagar Parishad, Bramhapuri, through Its Chief Officer Vs Shri. Shambhu Hariji Bawankule and Others