Ajay Shantaram Tambatkar and Others vs M/S Bajaj Auto Ltd. through Its Factory Manager and Another

79)	Rameshwar s/o Shrimantrao Jadhav, Age- Major, Occu. Nil.
80)	Madhukar s/o Shankarrao Jadhav, Age- Major, Occu. Nil.
81)	Dilipkumar s/o Prabhakar Alapure, Age- Major, Occu. Nil.
82)	Vijay s/o Shivaji Jadhav, Age- Major, Occu. Nil.
83)	Ramesh s/o Chandrabhanji Dhamale, Age- Major, Occu. Nil.
84)	Rajendra s/o Raosaheb Chavan, Age- Major, Occu. Nil.
85)	Appa s/o Dadarao Kale, Age- major, Occu. Nil.
86)	Baban s/o Gajanan Bodakhe, Age- Major, Occu. Nil.
87)	Pravin s/o Prabhakar Sangwe, Age- Major, Occu. Nil.
88)	Rajendra Panditrao Sonwane, Age- Major, Occu. Nil, All R/o. C/o. Petitioner No.1. ..PETITIONERS (Ori. Second Party Employees) VERSUS
1)	M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd, Bajaj Nagar, Waluj, Chh. Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad) Through It's Factory Manager.
2)	Bhartiya Kamgar Kranti Sanghatana, Plot No. 122, Opp. Manuprabha Apts, Gurusahani Nagar, N-4, CIDCO, Chh. Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad) ..RESPONDENTS (Ori. First Party)

¶93

AND WRIT PETITION NO.8423 OF 2025

¶94

(7) wp-7416-2025 & anr..odt

¶95

Ajay S/o. Shantaram Tambatkar, Age. 51 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. RM/47/Sawarkar Colony, Bajaj Nagar, At Post. Bajaj Nagar, MIDC Waluj, Tq. Dist. Aurangabad.

¶96

Nandkishor S/o. Kashinath Gaiki, Age. 54 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. House No. 1535, Shraddha Colony, Near Ram Mandir, At Post. Waluj, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad.

¶97

Dilip S/o. Dnyandeo Sambre, Age. Age. 52 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Plot No. 175, CIDCO Nagar - 2, South City, Waluj Mahanagar, At Waluj Mahanagar, Post. Bajajnagar, Tq. Dist. Aurangabad.

¶98

Pandharinath S/o. Vinayak Sonawane, Age. 50 yeas, Occu Nil, R/o. Devgaon Rangari, Post. Devgaon Rangari, Tq. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad.

¶99

Sunil S/o. Kaduba Dabhade, Age. 50 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Devgaon Rangari, Post. Devgaon Rangari, Tq. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad.

¶100

Dashrath S/o. Gorakhnath Somase, Age. 41 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. At Chapaner, Kannad, Tq. Dist. Aurangabad.

¶101

Bhaginath S/o. Sakharam Thombre, Age. 52 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. At Bhaigaon, Post. Biloli, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad.

¶102

Shriram S/o. Wamanrao Diwate, Age. 48 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Parwati Niwas, Saraswati Colony, Kannad, At Post. Tq. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad.

¶103

Rajendra S/o. Ganapatrao Thamke, Age. 47 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Mulla Galli, Ward No. 1, Hadgaon, At Post. Hadgaon, Tq. Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded.

¶104

wp-7416-2025 & anr..odt

¶105

(8)

¶106

10.	Laxman S/o. Yadav Pund,
	Age. 53 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. At Post. Mali Chinchora, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar.
11.	Abasaheb S/o. Janardan Shinde, Age. 50 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. At Post. Hol, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed. ..Petitioner (Orig. Second Party - Workman) Versus
1) 2)	M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd, Bajaj Nagar, Waluj, Aurangabad, Through Its Factory Manager. ..Respondents (Orig. Second Party-Union) Bhartiya Kamgar Kranti Sanghatana, Plot No. 122, Opp. Manuprabha Apts, Gurusahani Nagar, N-4, CIDCO, Aurangabad. ..RESPONDENTS (Ori. First Party – Employer) WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10903 OF 2025
1.	Rajaram S/o. Dhondiram Jagdale, Age. 53 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. At Post. Sawangi Harsool, Tq. Dist. Aurangabad.
2.	Rajaram S/o. Narayan Solunke, Age. 51 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Bhalgaon Road, Near Maruti Mandir, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad.
3.	Suresh S/o. Ramkrushna Sonawane, Age. 50 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Khamgaon, Tq. Phulambri, Dist. Aurangabad.
4.	Hiralal S/o. Mahmadsab Tamboli, Age. 53 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. At Post. Ashta, Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur. Applicants (Proposed Petitioners)
5.	Ajay S/o. Shantaram Tambatkar, Age. 51 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. RM/47/Sawarkar Colony, Bajaj Nagar, At Post. Bajaj Nagar,

¶107

wp-7416-2025 & anr..odt

¶108

(9)

¶109

MIDC Waluj, Tq. Dist. Aurangabad.

¶110

1. Nandkishor S/o. Kashinath Gaiki, Age. 54 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. House No. 1535, Shraddha Colony, Near Ram Mandir, At Post. Waluj, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad.

¶111

Dilip S/o. Dnyandeo Sambre, Age. 52 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Plot No. 175, CIDCO Nagar - 2, South City, Waluj Mahanagar, At Waluj Mahanagar, Post. Bajajnagar, Tq. Dist. Aurangabad. 1

¶112

Pandharinath S/o. Vinayak Sonawane, Age. 50 yeas, Occu Nil, R/o. Devgaon Rangari, Post. Devgaon Rangari, Tq. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad.

¶113

Sunil S/o. Kaduba Dabhade, Age. 50 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Devgaon Rangari, Post. Devgaon Rangari, Tq. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad.

¶114

Dashrath S/o. Gorakhnath Somase, Age. 41 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. At Chapaner, Kannad, Tq. Dist. Aurangabad.

¶115

Bhaginath S/o. Sakharam Thombre, Age. 52 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. At Bhaigaon, Post. Biloli, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad.

¶116

Shriram S/o. Wamanrao Diwate, Age. 48 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Parwati Niwas, Saraswati Colony, Kannad, At Post. Tq. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad.

¶117

Rajendra S/o. Ganapatrao Thamke, Age. 47 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Mulla Galli, Ward No. 1, Hadgaon, At Post. Hadgaon, Tq. Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded.

¶118

Laxman S/o. Yadav Pund, Age. 53 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. At Post. Mali Chinchora,

¶119

wp-7416-2025 & anr..odt

¶120

(10)

¶121

Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶122

Abasaheb S/o. Janardan Shinde, Age. 50 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. At Post. Hol, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed. ..Applicants (Orig. Petitioners)

¶123

Versus

¶124

M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd, Bajaj Nagar, Waluj, Aurangabad, Through Its Factory Manager. ..Non applicant (Orig. Respondent No. 1 in WP)

¶125

Bhartiya Kamgar Kranti Sanghatana, Plot No. 122, Opp. Manuprabha Apts, Gurusahani Nagar, N-4, CIDCO, Aurangabad.

¶126

..Non applicant

¶127

(Ori. Respondent No. 2 in WP)

¶128

Mr. P. K. Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioners in WP/7416/2025. Mr. P. P. Shahane, Advocate for Petitioners in WP/8423/2025. Mr. S. V. Dankh, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. S. B. Rajebhosale, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶129

…

¶130

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 25^th MARCH, 2026.

¶131

JUDGMENT:-

¶132

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of

¶133

parties, matters are taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

¶134

The present Writ Petitions takes exception to order dated

¶135

08.04.2025 passed by Industrial Court, Aurangabad below

¶136

Exhibits-U-452, U-455 and U-456 in pending Reference (IT) No.4/2006, whereby petitioners applications to permit them to prosecute their individual claims in pending Reference have been rejected.

¶137

wp-7416-2025 & anr..odt

¶138

(11)

¶139

The petitioners were employed with Bajaj Auto Limited. Their services were availed on rotation system by giving short term appointments. Similarly situated employees had individually approached to Industrial Court claiming permanency and other benefit under Item 6, Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act, in which declaration of unfair labour practice under Item 6 was made and it is confirmed upto Supreme Court. In aforesaid backdrop, Union and left over employees made demand before Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Aurangabad for benefit of permanency and consequential reliefs. Eventually, dispute was referred to Industrial Tribunal, Aurangabad in Reference (IT) No.4/2006. The petitioners were second party employees. During pendency of Reference, settlement talks between respondent nos.2 and 3 were undertaken. The respondent no.1-employer and respondent no.2Union entered into settlement. Accordingly, on 06.11.2023 Award in terms of settlement came to be passed. The operative part of Award reads thus:

¶140

“1) The award is passed in terms of Memorandum of Settlement at Exh.UC-3 arrived at between the first party and members of the second party Union whose names are enlisted in Annexure “A-1”.

¶141

2) Copies of the Award be forwarded to the Appropriate Government through Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Aurangabad for its publication along with the copies of Memorandum of Settlement at Exh.UC-3 alongwith copy of Annexure “A-1”, as per Rules.

¶142

3) The reference shall proceed further in respect of the rest of the members of the Second Party Union whose

¶143

wp-7416-2025 & anr..odt

¶144

(12)

¶145

names are enlisted in Annexure Nos.A-2, A-3 and A-4 as per law.”

¶146

The workmen enlisted in Annexure A-1 had agreed to receive lump-sum amount calculated at 65 days’ salary inclusive of all allowances. However, Reference continued to proceed in respect of rest of members of Union whose claims were enlisted in Annexures A-2, A-3 and A-4.

¶147

Admittedly, names of petitioners were enlisted in Annexure A-1. As such, Award to their extent has attained finality. At this stage, petitioners filed application below Exhibits-U-452, U-455 and U-456 contending that Union had not taken petitioners into confidence. The settlement is not binding on them. They have not individually signed settlement and their names are wrongly inserted in Annexure A-1 fraudulently by making misrepresentation. It is further contended that Reference is permitted to be continued by other workmens, except those enlisted in Annexure A-1. Therefore, petitioners may be permitted to continue with Reference. The Industrial Court rejected petitioners’ application with clarification that workmen enlisted in Annexure A-2 (who have not singed purshish or filed affidavits), A-3 and A-4 will have right to prosecute claim).

¶148

Mr. Joshi and Mr. Shahane, learned Advocates appearing for

¶149

petitioners/workmen submit that petitioners have specifically

¶150

wp-7416-2025 & anr..odt

¶151

(13)

¶152

averred that they were not taken in confidence by respondent no.2Union. They were not given idea about terms of settlement. Therefore, Award would not be binding upon petitioners. If other set of workmen, except those enlisted in Annexure A-1 are permitted to proceed with Reference, there is no impediment to permit individual petitioners to proceed with Reference. The Award on the basis of settlement entered into by Union would not be binding upon them.

¶153

Per contra, Mr. Dankh, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.1 submits that petitioners are members of Union. The Reference was made on the basis of representation made by Union. The statement of claim was signed by Union as well as individual workmen. The Memorandum of

¶154

Understanding/Memorandum of Settlement by parties is signed by representatives of Union. The individual workmen, who have filed affidavits and pursis accepting Award are enlisted in Annexure A-1 of Award, which has been passed on the basis of settlement. The petitioners never challenged Award. The Award has attained finality. The petitioners cannot be permitted to participate in pending Reference, as Reference to their extent has been finally disposed of in light of interim Award.

¶155

Having considered submissions advanced by learned

¶156

Advocates appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that

¶157

wp-7416-2025 & anr..odt

¶158

(14)

¶159

during pedency of Reference (IT) No.4/2006 rounds of negotiation were undertaken between respondent no.1-employer and respondent no.2-Union. Eventually, Memorandum of Understanding was prepared and settlement was arrived. The workmen who agreed for settlement have either filed affidavit or pursis in support of settlement. Those workmen were enlisted in Annexure A-1. Eventually, interim Award in terms of Section 17 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was passed to the extent of employees enlisted in Annexure A-1. Apparently, workmen enlisted in Annexure A-1 are bound by Award as per Section 18 of Industrial Disputes Act. Pertinently, petitioners whose names are enlisted in Annexure A-1 did not challenge interim Award dated 08.11.2023 by filing appropriate proceeding within prescribed period. Even, they have not raised challenge to Award before this Court by filing independent proceeding. As long as interim award subsists, petitioners cannot seek permission to continue with reference. They have no locus or legal right to seek participation in reference proceeding which is terminated to their extent as per interim award that has attained finality.

¶160

In light of aforesaid circumstances, application filed by petitioners seeking permission to prosecute their individual claims in Reference (IT) No.4/2006 is rightly rejected by Industrial Court. In that view of matter, there is no merit in Writ Petitions.

¶161

wp-7416-2025 & anr..odt

¶162

(15)

¶163

In result, Writ Petitions stand rejected.

¶164

Needless to state here that, petitioners would be at liberty to take up appropriate remedy as available under law to raise challenge to Award dated 08.11.2023 by filing appropriate

¶165

proceeding as permissible under law.

¶166

Rule stands discharged.

¶167

In view of dismissal of Writ Petitions, pending Civil Application also stands disposed of.

¶168

(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE

¶169

Devendra/March-2026

Ajay Shantaram Tambatkar and Others v. M/S Bajaj Auto Ltd. through Its Factory Manager and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Shantaram Tambatkar and Others v. M/S Bajaj Auto Ltd. through Its Factory Manager and Another

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

Rangnath Marutirao Bhise Died Thr Lrs Mudrikabai Rangnath Bhise Died and Ors. vs Tulsabai Sopan Bhore and Another

Anusaya Alias Sulekha Mohanrao Jagtap vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Deepak Vijay Dubbewar and Others vs Subhadrabai Manohar Dubbewar and Others

Shantabai Buddhaji Barge and Others vs Meenatai Ramesh Barge and Others

Kavita Nagesh Nalge and Others vs Bhagyashree Satyanarayan Nalge and Others

Santosh Tukaram Nagare and Another vs the State of Maharashtra and Another