Allowed¶29

Bosch Ltd. and and Anr. v. Netw Kamgar Sangthana and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Mar 2025WP/10878/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition 10878 of 2024, Bombay High Court, Sandeep V. Marne J., 6 March 2025; Section 13, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971; recognition/cancellation of registration of Respondent No.2-union; Exhibit U-3 application; Industrial Court Nashik; production of documents; employee strength 1985-2021, permanent, OJT, NETW, apprentice, contract labourers; settlements with recognised union since 2010 in public domain; employer impleaded as mere formal party; roving enquiry; order dated 24 April 2024 set aside; petition allowed; no costs; Bosch Ltd; NETW Kamgar Sangthana.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 24 April 2024 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Nashik set aside; petition allowed; no orders as to costs. ¶29

Bosch Ltd. and and Anr. vs Netw Kamgar Sangthana and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Order dated 24 April 2024 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Nashik set aside; petition allowed; no orders as to costs.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the Industrial Court, Nashik rightly allowed Respondent No.1-union's application at Exhibit U-3 directing the Petitioner-employer, impleaded merely as a formal party, to produce documents/data (employee-strength data 1985-2021 and copies of settlements). +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

Copies of settlements are in the public domain and it is easily possible for Respondent No.1-union to secure them from the concerned authorities; there was no dispute on this position.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

For deciding the application for cancellation of registration of Respondent No.2-union, it is not necessary to compel the Petitioner-employer to produce data relating to employees employed for the period of 36 long years.

¶28

Key takeaways

The Petitioner-employer, being a mere formal party to the application, cannot be compelled to produce data relating to appointments made in the company since the year 1985 to 2021.ratio¶28
What is undertaken by Respondent No.1-union appears to be a roving enquiry by seeking all sorts of information from the opposite party instead of standing on its own legs.ratio¶28
The Industrial Court erred in allowing the application at Exhibit U-3; the order dated 24 April 2024 is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Sandeep V. Marne, J., 6 March 2025) allowed Writ Petition No.10878 of 2024 filed by Bosch Ltd and Anr. against NETW Kamgar Sangthana and Anr., setting aside the order dated 24 April 2024 of the Member, Industrial Court, Nashik, whereby the union's application at Exhibit U-3 was allowed and the petitioner-employer was directed to produce documents. The employer stood impleaded merely as a formal party in Respondent No.1-union's application under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 concerning Respondent No.2-union. Held: (i) copies of settlements are in the public domain and can be secured by the union from the concerned authorities; (ii) for deciding the application regarding Respondent No.2-union's registration it was not necessary to compel the employer to produce 36-year (1985-2021) employee-strength data; (iii) an employer impleaded as a mere formal party cannot be compelled to produce data of appointments since 1985 to 2021; (iv) the union's demand amounted to a roving enquiry instead of standing on its own legs. Petition allowed with no order as to costs.

¶1

Megha 32_wP_10878_2024.docx

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.10878 OF 2024

Bosch Ltd and Anr..

...Petitioners

V/s.

NETW Kamgar Sangthana and Anr

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Mr. Kiran Bapat, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Rahul D. Oak Petitioners.

¶10

Mr. T.K. Prabhakaran i/b. Mr. Satyadev R. Pandey for Respondent No.1.

¶11

Ms. Pavitra Manesh for Respondent No.2.

¶12

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. Dated: 6 March 2025.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

MEGHA SHREEDHAR PARAB

¶15

Petition challenges order dated 24 April 2024 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Nashik, allowing the application at Exhibit U-3 and directing Petitioner-employer to produce the documents enumerated in the application at U-3 filed by the Respondent No.1-union.

¶16

Digitally signed by MEGHA SHREEDHAR PARAB Date: 2025.03.10 14:58:14 +0530

¶17

I have heard Mr. Bapat, the learned senior advocate appearing for Petitioners, Mr. Prabhakaran, the learned counsel

¶18

Page No. 1 of 3

¶19

6 March 2025

¶20

Megha 32_wP_10878_2024.docx

¶21

appearing for Respondent No.1 and Ms. Manesh the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2-recognised union.

¶22

It appears that Respondent No.1 has filed an application under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 seeking recognition of registration of Respondent No.2union. In that application Petitioner was impleaded as a mere formal party and there is a specific averment to that effect in the application. Though the Petitioner is impleaded merely as a formal party, Respondent No.1-union filed application at U-3 calling upon the Petitioner to produce data relating to employees strength since 1985 to 2021 as well as copies of various settlements entered into with recognised union since 2010.

¶23

So far as copies of settlements are concerned, there is no dispute to the position that the same are in the public domain and it is easily possible for the Respondent No.1 -union to secure copies thereof from the concerned authorities.

¶24

So far as the information sought in paragraph 2 of the application is concerned, Respondent No.1 -union sought information relating to employees strength since the year 1985 divided amongst permanent, OJT, NETW, apprentice and contract labourers. Thus, Respondent No.1-union sought data with regard to various kinds of employees engaged by the Petitioner for the last 36 long years. In my view, for deciding

¶25

Page No. 2 of 3

¶26

6 March 2025

¶27

Megha 32_wP_10878_2024.docx

¶28

application for cancellation of registration of Respondent No.2union, it is not necessary to compel Petitioner -employer to produce data relating to employees employed for the period of 36 long years. In any case, Petitioner had they have pleaded that they do not have the said data. What is undertaken by Respondent No.1-union appears to be a roving enquiry by seeking all sort of information from opposite party instead of standing on its own legs. Petitioner-employer, being a mere formal party to the application, it cannot be compelled to produce data relating to appointments made in the company since the year 1985 to 2021. In my view, therefore the Industrial Court has erred in allowing the application at Exhibit U-3. Order dated 24 April 2024 is thus unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

¶29

Petition accordingly succeeds. Order dated 24 April 2024 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Nashik, is set aside. Petition is allowed in above terms. There shall be no orders as to costs.

¶30

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

¶31

Page No. 3 of 3 6 March 2025

Bosch Ltd. and and Anr. v. Netw Kamgar Sangthana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bosch Ltd. and and Anr. v. Netw Kamgar Sangthana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vayudoot Multi Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited vs Thirumala Construction

Valsala Venugopal Menon vs Chunilal Mulchand and Co.

Phonographic Performance Limited vs Rock and Storm Hospitality

Jan Mukti Morcha vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bhagvanji Rayani vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.