Dismissed

Shri. Nateshwar Raghunath Shirdhankar v. for Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation , through Its Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Mar 2024WP/891/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenged Industrial Court orders dismissing complaints under Section 28(1) read with Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act claiming regular time-scale benefits under Clause-49 of the 1956 Settlement. The High Court held the petitioners failed to plead continuous 180 days' service and found no legal infirmity in the impugned orders.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shri. Nateshwar Raghunath Shirdhankar Vs for… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

20-wp896-2018 with wp891-2018.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.896 OF 2018

¶5

ATUL GANESH KULKARNI

¶6

Digitally signed by ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Date: 2024.03.07 14:56:59 +0530

¶7

Subhash Shripat Khamkar & Ors.… Petitioners
V/s.
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, through its Secretary
& Ors.… Respondents

¶8

WITH

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.891 OF 2018

¶10

Nateshwar Raghunath Shirdhankar… Petitioner
V/s.

¶11

Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, through its Secretary
& Ors.… Respondents

¶12

Mr. Srikrishna R. Ganbavale for the petitioners.
Ms. Pinky M. Bhansali for respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶13

CORAM :AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶14

DATED:MARCH 7, 2024

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

1.The petitioners in both these writ petitions are challenging
order passed by the Industrial Court dismissing Complaint filed
under Section 28(1) read with items 9 and 10 of Schedule-IV of
the Maharashtra Registered Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair
Labour Practice Act, 1971 claiming benefits of Clause-49 of the
Settlement of 1956.

¶17

¶18

20-wp896-2018 with wp891-2018.doc

¶19

2.According to the petitioners, they worked with the
respondent/Corporation on regular time-scale for 180 days as per
Clause-49 of the Settlement of 1956. However, the respondent
failed to place them on regular time-scale in defiance of Clause-49
of the Settlement of 1956.

¶20

3.The respondents contested the complaint by filing reply.
According to the respondents, apart from complaint being barred
by limitation, it was contended that the respondents have not
committed any breach of Clause-49 of the Settlement of 1956 as
the petitioners never performed their work continuously for 180
days.

¶21

4.The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint on two
grounds: (i) complaint is barred by limitation; and (ii) on the point
of failure to prove continuous service for 180 days.

¶22

5.On perusal of the averments in the complaint, it appears that
the petitioners failed to plead that they worked continuously for
180 days in their complaint. Moreover, according to the
respondents Settlement of 1956 granted benefits only to the
employees who worked for 180 days continuously.

¶23

6.According to the petitioners, paragraph 4 of the Complaint
refers to the annexure and the annexure provide details. On
perusal of the annexure, it is not possible to accept the petitioners’
contention that the averments in the writ petition can be construed
as 180 days continuous work. In absence of averment, the
Industrial Court has rightly concluded that the petitioners worked
for 180 days continuously. In absence of entitlement as provided

¶24

¶25

20-wp896-2018 with wp891-2018.doc

¶26

by Clause-49 of the Settlement, the Industrial Court has rightly
dismissed the complaint. Hence, there is no legal infirmity in the
order impugned in these writ petitions.

¶27

7. Both the writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. No costs.

¶28

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶29

Shri. Nateshwar Raghunath Shirdhankar v. for Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation , through Its Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shri. Nateshwar Raghunath Shirdhankar v. for Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation , through Its Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sadashiv Gajanan Kulkarni (Bhingare) and Ors. Vs Mahadev Vithoba Nikam

Shree Brahmanath Devasthan Unchgaon through Trustee R.S.Zurale Vs the Joint Charity Commissioner Kolhapur

Mr. Ganesh Haribhau More and Ors. Vs Mr. Krushna Laxman Kadam and Ors.

Balaji Spinning and Weaving Mill Vs Shri. Savarappa Hanmantu Kenchanal

Sachin Krishna Jadhav Vs the President Apang Purnarvasan Santha and Ors.

Shri. Subhash Shripat Khamkar and Ors. Vs for Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation , through Its Secretary and Ors.