Disposed

Kanak Jani v. Premier Employees Union

Bombay HC18 Jan 2024WP/8263/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an Industrial Court award that declared unfair labour practices, quashed an illegal notice, and directed wage payments. The Court held that since the Resolution Professional did not challenge the award's legality, the writ stood disposed of, but clarified that monetary recovery rights are subject to the IBC Tribunal's decision.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with clarification that rights to recover charges are subject to the IBC Tribunal's decision.

Kanak Jani Vs Premier Employees Union — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

4-wp8263-2022.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.8263 OF 2022

¶5

Digitally signed byATUL ATULGANESH GANESHKULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2024.01.18 14:11:25 +0530

¶6

Kanak Jani… Petitioner
V/s.
Premier Employees Union… Respondent

¶7

Mr. Akshay Petkar with Mr. Aniket Malu & Mr. Aditya
Nair for the petitioner.

¶8

Ms. Gayatri Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shreya
Mohapatra i/by Mr. Shreeram V.G. for the respondent.

¶9

CORAM:AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶10

DATED:JANUARY 18, 2024

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶13

2.The Industrial Court by impugned Judgment and Award
passed following order:

¶14

“1.Complaint is partly allowed.

¶15

2.It is hereby declared that the respondents committed
unfair labour practice as per item 9 of Schedule IV of the
MRTU & PULP Act.

¶16

3.It is hereby declared that notice dated 3.3.2020 issued
by the company is illegal and hence, it is quashed and set
aside.

¶17

4.Respondents are directed to pay wages to the members
of the complainant union from March 2020 onwards

¶18

¶19

4-wp8263-2022.doc

¶20

regularly after deducting the amount, if any paid to them for
the months of March 2020 and April 2020.

¶21

5.The prayer of the complainant to declare unfair labour
practice under item 10 of schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP
Act, 1971 is hereby rejected.

¶22

6.Both the parties shall bear their own respective costs.”

¶23

3.The said order is challenged by the Resolution Professional
appointed under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016 (“IBC” for short). Limited grievance raised by the
petitioner is that unless Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is
complete, the complainant/Union cannot insist on execution of the
Award to the extent of its monetary consequences.

¶24

4.It is well settled that the monetary liability in relation to
corporate debtor, the award or decree or any other monetary
liability cannot be executed till the Resolution Plan is approved
under the provisions of the IBC.

¶25

5.The petitioner, on instructions, states that the claim of
complainant/Union is under process and final decision by the
National Company Law Tribunal is yet to taken.

¶26

6.However, considering the scope of judicial review of order
passed by the Industrial Court, it appears that the Resolution
Professional is not challenging validity and legality of order passed
by the Industrial Court, it is not necessary to entertain the
challenge to clauses 1 to 6 of the order passed by the Industrial
Court.

¶27

¶28

4-wp8263-2022.doc

¶29

7.However, it is made clear that the rights of the parties to
recover charges shall be subject to the decision of the Tribunal
under the provisions of the IBC.

¶30

8. With this clarification, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶31

9. Rule stands discharged in above terms.

¶32

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶33

Kanak Jani v. Premier Employees Union

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanak Jani v. Premier Employees Union

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

Sunil Shriram Wagh and Anr. Vs Special Recovery and Sales Officer Brihanmumbai Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha and Ors.

Mr. Navinchandra Pathak Vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation through the Municipal Commissioner and Ors.

Shri. Rakesh Rajendrakumar Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Prin. Secretary, Mantralaya and Ors.

Union of India through the General Manager Western Railway vs Deputy Director General of Forests

Standard Trading Company vs the Shipping Master Govt. Shipping Office

Smt Usha Ramesh Surti and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.