Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. vs Grocery Markets and Shops Board (for Greater Mumbai , Palghar Raigad Districts) and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. vs Grocery Markets and Shops Board (for Greater Mumbai , Palghar Raigad Districts) and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned Order dated 18th July, 2025 set aside; matter to be decided afresh by the full-fledged Tripartite Board, which is to pass a reasoned Order within six weeks without being influenced by the observations in the impugned Order; payments under protest to continue till disposal; no order as to costs; no opinion expressed on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the matter should be heard/decided afresh by the full-fledged Tripartite Board constituted under amended Section 6 of the Act by the Respondent-State's notification dated 11th November, 2025. +1 more

Court's answer

Having considered the submissions, and particularly in view of the Notification dated 11th November, 2025 by which the Respondent-State constituted a full-fledged Tripartite Board under amended Section 6 of the Act, the Court considered it appropriate that the matter be decided afresh by the full-fledged Tripartite Board.

Ratio / Principle

Since the impugned Order dated 18th July, 2025 had been acted upon by the Petitioner by making payments under protest, that arrangement shall continue till the disposal of the matter by the Tripartite Board.

Key takeaways

The Tripartite Board shall, upon hearing the parties and without being influenced by the observations in the impugned Order, pass a reasoned Order within a period of six weeks.ratio¶25
The impugned Order dated 18th July, 2025 is set aside; the Court expressly made clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the Writ Petition.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition disposed of. Following the Respondent-State's notification dated 11th November, 2025 (Exhibit R 3) constituting a full-fledged Tripartite Board under amended Section 6 of the Maharashtra Mathadi Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969, the High Court held it appropriate that the matter be decided afresh by that Board. The impugned Order dated 18th July, 2025, passed by a one member board and already acted upon (with the Petitioner making payments under protest), was set aside. The payments-under-protest arrangement continues till disposal; the Tripartite Board must hear the parties and pass a reasoned Order within six weeks without being influenced by the observations in the impugned Order. No opinion was expressed on the merits; no order as to costs.

27-wp-15632-2025.doc

jsn

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.15632 OF 2025

Digitally signed by JITENDRA JITENDRA SHANKAR SHANKAR NIJASURE NIJASURE Date: 2026.03.24 18:24:02 +0530

Parle Agro Private Ltd. ...Petitioner

Versus

Grocery Markets & Shops Board and Ors. ...Respondents

Mr. J.P. Cama, Senior Advocate, with Avinash Jalisatgi, T.R. Yadav, Nagendra Dube and Mr. M. Vora for the Petitioner.

Mr. Laxman S. Deshmukh, for Respondent No.4.

Mr. Kedar Dighe, Addl. G.P. with Smt. G.R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for Respondent No.5 – State.

CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ. DATE : 23RD MARCH, 2026 ORDER :

By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking a direction

to the Respondent No.3 to constitute a full-fledged Tripartite Board in consonance with Section 6 of the Maharashtra Mathadi Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (“the Act”). Further, a direction to the Respondent No.3 to withdraw, rescind, recall and/or set aside the said impugned Order

1/3

27-wp-15632-2025.doc

dated 18th July, 2025.

Mr. J. P. Cama, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the Petitioner states that in the Affidavit in Reply filed by the Respondent No.4, reference is made to the notification dated 11th November, 2025, (Exhibit R 3 to the Affidavit) whereby a full-fledged Tripartite Board has been constituted by the Respondent – State. He has accordingly sought for the matter to be heard afresh by the fullfledged Tripartite Board which has been constituted in accordance with amended Section 6 of the Act.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4 has submitted that the impugned Order dated 18th July, 2025 had been passed by a one member board which had been validly constituted under Section 6 of the Act, and the impugned order has been acted upon by the parties.

Having considered the submissions and particularly in view of the Notification dated 11th November, 2025 passed by the Respondent – State by which a full-fledged Tripartite Board has been constituted under amended Section 6 of the Act, we consider it

2/3

27-wp-15632-2025.doc

appropriate that the matter be decided afresh by the full-fledged Tripartite Board.

In view of the impugned Order dated 18th July, 2025 having been acted upon by the Petitioner by making payments under protest, this arrangement shall continue till the disposal of the matter by the Tripartite Board. The Tripartite Board shall upon hearing the parties and without being influenced by the observations in the impugned Order pass the reasoned Order within a period of six weeks from today.

In view of the above, the impugned Order dated 18th July, 2025 is set aside. In so doing we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the Writ Petition.

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

3/3