1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4325 OF 1995
Vikas Powerloom Co-operative Society,
Latur,
Through its Liquidator Mr.K.D.More -- PETITIONER
Versus
Adinath S/o Namdeo Shinde,
Age-50 years, Occu-Nil,
R/o Latur ig -- RESPONDENT
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4326 OF 1995 Samrat Powerloom Co-operative Society, Latur, Through its Liquidator Mr.K.D.More -- PETITIONER Versus Digambar S/o Shivling Uddarwar, Age-50 years, Occu-Nil, R/o Latur -- RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4327 OF 1995 Vijay Powerloom Co-operative Society, Latur, Through its Liquidator Mr.K.D.More -- PETITIONER Versus Kalba S/o Natha Suryawanshi, Age-50 years, Occu-Service, R/o Kanheri Lamantanda, Latur -- RESPONDENT WITH khs/JULY 2016/4325-d ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:51:16 ::: 2 WRIT PETITION NO.4677 OF 1995 Powerloom Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd., Latur, Dist.Latur Through its Liquidator Mr.K.D.More -- PETITIONER Versus
1. Anant Murlidharrao Kulkarni, Age-38 years, Occu-Service, R/o Latur,
2. General Manager/Director, (Powerloom) Marathwada Development Corporation, Aurangabad,
3. Managing Director, Marathwada Textile Corporation, Dhanegaon, Nanded -- RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4679 OF 1995 Powerloom Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd., Latur, Dist.Latur Through its Liquidator Mr.K.D.More -- PETITIONER Versus
1. Manohar S/o Bhujayya Vibhute, Age-42 years, Occu-Service, R/o Deshpande Galli, Wada of Bapurao Pande, Latur
2. General Manager/Director, (Powerloom) Marathwada Development Corporation, Aurangabad,
3. Managing Director, Marathwada Textile Corporation, Dhanegaon, Nanded -- RESPONDENTS WITH khs/JULY 2016/4325-d ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:51:16 ::: 3 WRIT PETITION NO.4680 OF 1995 Powerloom Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd., Latur, Dist.Latur Through its Liquidator Mr.K.D.More -- PETITIONER Versus
1. Prakash S/o Shrinivasrao Patil, Age-40 years, Occu-Service, R/o Latur,
2. General Manager/Director, (Powerloom) Marathwada Development Corporation, Aurangabad,
3. Managing Director, Marathwada Textile Corporation, Dhanegaon, Nanded -- RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4682 OF 1995 Powerloom Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd., Latur, Dist.Latur Through its Liquidator Mr.K.D.More -- PETITIONER Versus
1. Amarkant S/o Vithalrao Kharosekar, Age-40 years, Occu-Service, R/o Datta Mandir, Latur,
2. General Manager/Director, (Powerloom) Marathwada Development Corporation, Aurangabad,
3. Managing Director, Marathwada Textile Corporation, Dhanegaon, Nanded -- RESPONDENTS Mr.B.N.Patil, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.T.M.Venjane, Advocate for the respondent in WP No.4326/1995.
khs/JULY 2016/4325-d ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:51:16 ::: 4 ( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) DATE : 18/07/2016 ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner in all these matters are aggrieved by the judgments dated 12/12/1994 and 05/10/1994 delivered by the Labour Court, Latur in a group of Application (IDA) Nos.157/1993, 158/1993, 159/1993, 106/1992, 101/1992, 99/1992, 227/1993 respectively.
2. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides for quite some time.
3. Mr.Patil, learned Advocate for the petitioners has strenuously criticized the impugned judgments. Contention is that issue No.1 framed by the Labour Court has not been properly considered and the impugned orders reflect non application of mind. He, therefore, submits that though the service tenure of the respondents employees and their claims for special allowance may not be disputed, the fact remains that since the petitioner/society was in liquidation, no proceedings before any Court could be entertained in lieu of the bar u/s 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
khs/JULY 2016/4325-d ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:51:16 ::: 5
4. Learned Advocate Mr.Venjane has supported the impugned orders.
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates.
6. This Court has, in the matter of Baburao Dadarao Kolhe and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2004(2) Mh.L.J. 898, dealt with a similar issue considering the claim of the workers for the unpaid wages during the pendency of liquidation proceedings. The learned Division Bench concluded that as the claim of the workers was not in relation to the business of the society and was purely a claim of wages, it was not necessary to array the liquidator or seek permission of the liquidator. Even if, such permission was sought, it should be granted.
7. In the light of the above and considering the passage of 21 years, I do not find any reason to cause interference with the impugned judgments.
8. These petitions, being devoid of merit, are therefore dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
khs/JULY 2016/4325-d ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:51:16 ::: 6
9. Civil applications, if any, do not survive and hence are disposed of.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) khs/JULY 2016/4325-d ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:51:16 :::