Jalindar Rangnath Lahare and Others vs M/S Ismt Limited Formeryly Known as the Indian Seamless Metal Tube Ltd. and Another

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:5595

¶2

1 WP 5681-2023.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5681 OF 2023

¶5

Rejendra Bhanudas Jadhav Age : 52 years, Occ. : Labour, R/o. : at Post Sarola Kasar, Tq. Nagar, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶6

Bhanudas Babaji Borate Deceased through L.Rs.

¶7

2.A. Bhimabai Bhanudas Borate Age : 60 years, Occ. : Household, R/o. : at Post Jamgaon, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad

¶8

Bhimrao Dada Kharat Age : 40 years, Occ. : Labour, R/o. : at Post Hinganvedhe, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶9

Yamnaji Kisan Zavare Age : 60 years, Occ. : Labour, R/o. : at Post Takli Dhokeshwar, Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶10

Keshav Bajirao Zade Age : 58 years, Occ. : Labour, R/o. : at Post Miri, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar … PETITIONERS (Ori. Complainants)

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

Indian Seamless & Metal Tubes Ltd., C-1, Nagaapur Industrial Area, Ahmednagar, Through the Managing Director

¶13

Sodhi Fabrications and Erectors near Sapkal Hospital, Savedi,

¶14

2 WP 5681-2023.odt

¶15

Ahmednagar, Through its Proprietor … RESPONDENTS (Ori. Opponenets)

¶16

Mr. Parag V. Barde – Advocate for Petitioners Mr. V.N. Upadhye – Advocate for Respondents

¶17

WITH

¶18

WRIT PETITION NO. 5682 OF 2023

¶19

Jalindar Rangnath Lahare Age : 54 years, Occ. : Service, R/o. : at Post Malvi Pimpalgaon, Tq. Nagar, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶20

Appasaheb Ramdas Mate Age : 54 years, Occ. : Service, R/o. : at Post Bhokar, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶21

Subhash Vitthalrao Ghate Age : 55 years, Occ. : Service, R/o. : at Post Dhotre, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶22

Dattatray Dnyandeo Dangat Age : 54 years, Occ. : Service, R/o. : at Post Bherdapur, Tq. shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶23

Kailas Kashinath Mane Age : 57 years, Occ. : Service, R/o. : at Post Jamgaon, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. : Ahmednagar

¶24

Lahanu Bansi Rokde Deceased through L.Rs.

¶25

6.A. Kusum Lahanu Rokade Age : 41 years, Occ. : Service,

¶26

6.B. Anil Lahanu Rokade Age : 24 years, Occ. : Service,

¶27

3 WP 5681-2023.odt

¶28

6.C. Trupti Lahanu Rokade Age : 21 years, Occ. : Service Petitioner Nos.6.A to 6.C, R/o. : at Post Wadgaon Savtal, Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶29

1. Deshmukh Bhimrao Sukhdeo Age : 55 years, Occ. : Service, R/o. : at Post Pargaon Ghumta, Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed … PETITIONERS (Ori. Complainants)

¶30

VERSUS

¶31

Indian Seamless & Metal Tubes Ltd., C-1, Nagaapur Industrial Area, Ahmednagar, Through the Managing Director 2. Sodhi Fabrications and Erectors near Sapkal Hospital, Savedi, Ahmednagar, Through its Proprietor … RESPONDENTS

¶32

(Ori. Opponenets)

¶33

Mr. Parag V. Barde – Advocate for Petitioners Mr. V.N. Upadhye – Advocate for Respondents …

¶34

WITH

¶35

WRIT PETITION NO. 9736 OF 2017

¶36

WITH

¶37

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2192 OF 2025 IN WP/9736/2017

¶38

M/s ISMT Limited (Formerly knows as The Indian Seamless & Metal Tube Ltd.), a company incorporated under the Companies Act and having its Head Office at C-15, MIDC, Nagapur, Ahmednagar 414011 … PETITIONER

¶39

VERSUS

¶40

Jalindar Rangnath Lahare

¶41

4 WP 5681-2023.odt Age : Major, Occ. : Service, R/o. : at Post Malvi Pimpalgaon, Tq. Nagar, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶42

Appasaheb Ramdas Mate Age : Major, Occ. : Service, R/o. : at Post Bhokar, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶43

Subhash Vitthalrao Ghate Age : Major, Occ. : Service, R/o. : at Post Dhotre, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶44

Dattatray Dnyandeo Dangat Age : Major, Occ. : Service, R/o. : at Post Bherdapur, Tq. shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶45

Kailas Kashinath Mane Age : Major, Occ. : Service, R/o. : at Post Jamgaon, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. : Ahmednagar

¶46

Lahanu Bansi Rokde Age : Major, Occ. : Service, R/o. : at Post Wadgaon Savtal, Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶47

Deshmukh Bhimrao Sukhdeo Age : Major, Occ. : Service, R/o. : at Post Pargaon Ghumta, Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed

¶48

Sodhi Fabrications and Erectors near Sapkal Hospital, Savedi, Ahmednagar, through Mr. Mohindersingh Sodhi … RESPONDENTS

¶49

Mr. V.N. Upadhye – Advocate for Petitioners Mr. Parag V. Barde – Advocate for Respondents

¶50

WITH

¶51

5 WP 5681-2023.odt

¶52

WRIT PETITION NO. 9735 OF 2017 WITH

¶53

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2193 OF 2025 IN WP/9735/2017

¶54

M/s ISMT Limited (Formerly knows as The Indian Seamless & Metal Tube Ltd.), a company incorporated under the Companies Act and having its Head Office at C-15, MIDC, Nagapur, Ahmednagar 414011 … PETITIONER

¶55

VERSUS

¶56

Jadhav Rejendra Bhanudas Age : Major, Occ. : Service, R/o. : at Post Sarola Kasar, Tq. Nagar, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶57

Bhanudas Babaji Borate (deceased) Through legal representative Smt. Bhimabai Bhanudas Borate R/o. : near Datta Temple, Nimgaon Road, Nimbalak, Dist. Ahmednagar 414111

¶58

Bhimrao Dada Kharat Age : Major, Occ. : Service, R/o. : at Post Hinganvedhe, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶59

Zaware Yamnaji Kisan Age : Major, R/o. : at Post Takli Dhokeshwar, Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶60

Keshav Bajirao Zade Age : Major, Occ. : Service, R/o. : at Post Miri, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶61

Sodhi Fabrications and Erectors near Sapkal Hospital, Savedi, Ahmednagar, through Mr. Mohindersingh Sodhi … RESPONDENTS

¶62

6 WP 5681-2023.odt

¶63

Mr. V.N. Upadhye – Advocate for Petitioners Mr. Parag V. Barde – Advocate for Respondents

¶64

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 03.02.2026

¶65

J U D G M E N T :

¶66

Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the matters are taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

¶67

The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner-Company in Writ Petition Nos.9735 and 9736 of 2017 is a public limited company having its factory at MIDC, where metal tubes are manufactured. The Company had more than 100 employees, including contract labour engaged for security, housekeeping, grinding, fabrication and allied works through contractors, including M/s. Sodhi Fabrications and Erectors, respondent No.6.

¶68

Nagar Zilla Mazdoor Sena (hereinafter referred to as “the Union”) is a recognised Union under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, having full right to bargain as the sole bargaining agent. The Union had filed Complaint (ULP) No. 332 of 1997, claiming to represent the employees whose names were mentioned in the annexures to the complaint, alleging that the contract system was sham and bogus and that the concerned

¶69

7 WP 5681-2023.odt

¶70

workmen were, in fact, direct employees of the Company. The complaint was filed under Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.

¶71

The petitioners appeared and filed their written statement contending that there was no employer-employee relationship between the Company and the concerned workmen and sought dismissal of the complaint.

¶72

During pendency of the proceedings, a settlement was arrived at between the petitioner-Company and the recognised Union, whereby certain specified employees were agreed to be absorbed as a one-time measure and the settlement attained finality.

¶73

Subsequently, the respondents/workmen filed Complaint (ULP) Nos. 35 and 46 of 1999, claiming permanency and other consequential benefits. The said complaint was resisted by the Company primarily on the ground that the workmen were engaged through a contractor and, therefore, no employer-employee relationship existed.

¶74

Some of the workmen filed Writ Petition No. 1087 of 2003, which came to be finally decided by this Court on 18.02.2016 and the matter was remanded to the Industrial Court for fresh consideration.

¶75

After remand, the learned Industrial Court, by order dated

¶76

8 WP 5681-2023.odt

¶77

18.04.2017, allowed the complaints and directed the petitioners to provide employment to the original complainants or, in the alternative, to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to each of them. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petitions.

¶78

As regards Writ Petition Nos. 5681 and 5682 of 2023, the workmen have approached this Court seeking enhancement of compensation and grant of back wages.

¶79

Learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 9735 and 9736 of 2023 submitted that the complaints were not maintainable and relied upon various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, contending that in absence of an employer-employee relationship, the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. He relied upon the following judgments :

¶80

(a) Hon’ble Apex Court in General Labour Union (Red Flag) Bombay Vs. Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico Printing Co Ltd (Calico Mills) Ahmedabad , 1995 (II) LLJ 765 (SC)

¶81

(b) Hon’ble Apex Court in Cipla Limited Vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union , 2001 AIR(SCW )929

¶82

(c) Hon’ble Apex Court in Vividh Kamgar Sabha Vs. Kalyani Steels Limited , 2001 AIR (SCW) 170

¶83

(d) This Court (Bench at Aurangabad) in Indian Seamless Metal Tubes Limited Vs. Sunil Rambhau Iwale and Ors. ,

¶84

9 WP 5681-2023.odt

¶85

2002 (1) ALL MR 870

¶86

(e) This Court (Bench at Nagpur) in V.I.P. Industries Limited Vs. Mr. Athar Jameel and Ors. , (2009) 111 BOMLR 2954

¶87

(f) This Court (Division Bench) in Hindustan Coca Cola Botteling S/W Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena and Ors. , 2002 (3) BCR 129

¶88

(g) Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarva Shramik Sangh Vs. M/s. Indian smelting and Refining Co. Ltd. , (2003) 10 SCC 455

¶89

(h) This Court in M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra Shramjivi General Kamgar Union and Anr. , 2025 STPL 1647 Bombay

¶90

(i) Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajneesh Khajuria Vs. M/s. Wockhardt Ltd. and Anr. , 2020 STPL 2376 SC

¶91

Per contra, learned counsel for the workmen submitted that the settlement dated 29.09.1999 clearly covered the respondents and, after remand, the complaints were amended restricting the relief only to implementation of the settlement and compensation. Therefore, the complaints were maintainable.

¶92

There is no dispute about the settlement arrived at between the parties. Clause of the settlement reads thus :

¶93

“It is however agreed between the parties that in the

¶94

10 WP 5681-2023.odt

¶95

event the company requires temporary employees on account of exigencies of work, the persons mentioned in Annexure “A” other than the persons mentioned in Annexure “B”, shall be given preference in filling up the temporary vacancies subject to their availability at the relevant time and suitability. A separate list of temporary employees shall be accordingly maintaind for giving preference in employment against the temporary vacancies to the person mentioned in Annexure “A”.

¶96

The Company at the time of execution of the Sttlement, has number of temporary vacancies presently ascertained which shall last for about a Period of not more than one year approximately. The Company has consented to the Union’s request to accommodate the employees mentioned in Annexure “A” other than mentioned in Annexure “B” previously employed by the Contractor and absorbed under the present Settlement. It is expressty areed by and between the parties that the persons who will be so accommodated against the present temporary cacancies, shall be appointed by the Company, specially for a period of not more than one year on a countract for one year, which shall not be renewed thereafter.”

¶97

On perusal of annexures to the settlement, it is evident that the names of respondents-workmen appear in Annexure ‘A’ at serial Nos.95, 104, 108, 112, 113, 115, 118, 126, 129 and 130, and in Annexure ‘B’ at serial No.32. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the respondents were not covered under the settlement cannot be accepted.

¶98

After remand, the complaints were amended and the relief was restricted to implementation of the settlement and compensation. Hence,

¶99

11

¶100

WP 5681-2023.odt

¶101

the objection regarding maintainability of the complaints is devoid of merit.

¶102

The learned Industrial Court has recorded detailed findings in paragraphs 31, 32, 36, 41, 43 and 44, and after considering the settlement and the material on record, awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to each workman. The said compensation, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the long lapse of time since 1999, appears to be just and reasonable.

¶103

I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶104

Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed.

¶105

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶106

In view of disposal of the Writ Petitions, pending Civil Application Nos.2192 and 2193 of 2025 also stand disposed of.

¶107

It is noted that the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.9735 and 9736 of

¶108

2023 have deposited an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- each pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, out of which a part amount has already been withdrawn.

¶109

Since this Court has dismissed the Writ Petitions along Civil

¶110

12 WP 5681-2023.odt

¶111

Applications and considering the fact that the workmen have not been in employment since 1999, the respondents-workmen (petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.5681 and 5682 of 2023) are permitted to withdraw the

¶112

balance amount deposited, along with interest accrued thereon, if any.

¶113

[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE

¶114

Pooja Kale/

Jalindar Rangnath Lahare and Others v. M/S Ismt Limited Formeryly Known as the Indian Seamless Metal Tube Ltd. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jalindar Rangnath Lahare and Others v. M/S Ismt Limited Formeryly Known as the Indian Seamless Metal Tube Ltd. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhujang Hanmantrao Patil vs Nagnath Narsing Patil and Others

Salim Mohammad Pathan Deceased Thr Lrs Tayarabi Salim Pathan and Others vs Hasan Babu Shaikh and Others

Uday Baburao Chounde vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Ganpat Govind Kanherkar vs Malhar Balkrushna Kulkarni and Others

Balasaheb Vishwanath Shinde vs the Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Co. Thr Ex. Engineer, Medium Project Osmanabad and Ors.

M/S K M Palwe Contractor and Engineer vs the State of Maharashtra through Executive Engineer