The State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal, Government Polytechnic College, Gondia. vs Jagdish Sudam Meshram — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

The State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal, Government Polytechnic College, Gondia. vs Jagdish Sudam Meshram — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing and setting aside of the Labour Court orders dated 29.11.2021 and the Industrial Court orders dated 09.01.2024; restoration of complaints ULP No.11/2019 and ULP No.12/2019 to the Labour Court for fresh decision within one year, with opportunity of hearing to all parties; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents (complainants) worked more than 240 days in a calendar year with the petitioners. +1 more

Court's answer

There is no document on record indicating that the respondents have worked with the petitioners for more than 240 days.

Ratio / Principle

The Industrial Court had not recorded any reasons as to whether the respondents completed 240 days of service in one calendar year.

Key takeaways

Both the orders dated 09.01.2024 passed by the learned Industrial Court and the orders dated 29.11.2021 passed by the learned Labour Court are liable to be set aside.ratio¶17
The matters are remanded back to the Labour Court to be decided afresh.ratio¶17
Remand is justified because, despite a direction, the petitioners did not place the relevant musters/record on file, and the Court wished to grant an opportunity to both parties in the interest of justice.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Thombre, J.), 15.10.2025 - Writ Petitions Nos. 2172 and 2173 of 2024, State of Maharashtra v. Jagdish S/o. Sudam Meshram and v. Vijendra Kanhaiyalal Warkade. The State challenged Industrial Court revision orders dated 09.01.2024 (Revision ULP No.3/2022 and No.4/2022) whereby the respondents' revisions were allowed against dismissal of their Labour Court complaints (ULP No.11/2019 and No.12/2019) claiming they had worked more than 240 days in a calendar year. The Court observed that although there was no document on record proving more than 240 days' work, the Industrial Court had not recorded any reasons on whether the respondents completed 240 days of service in one calendar year; it further noted that musters/records, despite a direction, had not been placed on the Labour Court file. Holding both sets of orders liable to be set aside, the Court quashed and set aside the Labour Court orders dated 29.11.2021 and the Industrial Court orders dated 09.01.2024, restored the complaints, and remanded them to the Labour Court for fresh decision within one year with opportunity of hearing to all parties. Petitions partly allowed; no order as to costs.

2025:BHC-NAG:11127

1 32-WP-2172-2024.odt

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

WRIT PETITION NO.2172 OF 2024

State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Jagdish S/o. Sudam Meshram WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.2173 OF 2024

State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Vijendra Kanhaiyalal Warkade

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

Mr. A.G. Mate, AGP for the Petitioners in both these petitions. Mr. A.K. Kukday, Advocate for the Respondent Sole in both these petitions.

CORAM: SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J . DATED : 15th OCTOBER, 2025

Heard Mr. A.G. Mate, learned AGP for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Kukday, learned counsel for the respondent.

In both these petitions, the petitioners are challenging the orders passed by the learned Industrial Court in Revision ULP No.3/2022 and Revision ULP No.4/2022 both dated 09.01.2024 whereby, the revisions filed by the respondent came to be allowed.

After going through the record, it reveals that the respondents herein had filed a complaints before the learned Labour Court. As per complaint ULP No.11/2019 and complaint ULP No.12/2019, complainant contended that they have worked more than 240 days in a calendar year. They failed to prove this contention by placing on

2 32-WP-2172-2024.odt

record relevant documents and therefore, the complaints were dismissed by the learned Labour Court.

Being aggrieved by the same, the present respondents filed revisions before the Industrial Court which were allowed.

After going through the order passed by the learned Industrial Court in revisions, it reveals that though there is no document on record, indicating that respondents have worked with petitioners for more than 240 days. Their contention was that the learned Industrial Court had not recorded any reasons about whether the respondents herein have completed 240 days of service in one calendar year or not. Therefore, in my opinion, both the orders dated 09.01.2024 passed by the learned Industrial Court and the orders dated 29.11.2021 passed by learned Labour Court, are liable to be set-aside and the matters are remanded back to the Labour Court to be decided a fresh.

In view of the fact that, in the proceeding before the learned Labour Court, it was directed to the petitioners to place on record the relevant musters/record but the same were not placed. Therefore, in the interest of justice and with a view to grant an opportunity to both the parties.

Accordingly, both these petitions are partly allowed . The orders passed by the learned Labour Court and Learned Industrial Court dated 29.11.2021 and 09.01.2024 respectively are hereby quashed and setaside. Learned Labour Court to decide the proceedings within a period of one year from today. The complaints

3 32-WP-2172-2024.odt

filed before the Learned Labour Court are hereby restored. Needless to mention that the learned Labour Court to give an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. No order as to costs.

(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE J.)

𝒫𝓇𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓁