Bhimrao Maroti Pukle & Ors vs Dhule Textile Mills

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 8430 Bom
Judgement Date : 3 November, 2017

Bombay High Court
Bhimrao Maroti Pukle & Ors vs Dhule Textile Mills on 3 November, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
                                       (1)                  WP No.5885/2004

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD.


                       WRIT PETITION NO. 5885 OF 2004 
                                      WITH
                     CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4711 OF 2006 
                                      WITH
                     CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4712 OF 2006.


 1.       Bhimrao Maroti Pukle
          Age : 52 years, occu.: retired mill employee
          R/o Narayan Master Chawl, Chittod Road,
          Dhule, District Dhule.


 2.       Lalchand Narottam Patil
          Age : 51 years, occu.: retired mill employee
          R/o Ahilya Devi Nagar, Near Ganesh
          Still Bhandar, Dhule


 3.       Devidas Sukhdev Wagh
          Age : 54 years, occu.: retired mill employee
          R/o Siddharth Nagar, Chittod Road,
          Dhule.


 4.       Ashok Dashrath Sonawane
          Age : 44 years, occu.:retired mill employee
          R/o Lelabai Chawal, Taluka and
          District Dhule.


 5.       Ramesh Narayan Kakade
          Age : 57 years, occu.: retired mill employee
          R/o Dhule Textile Mill, Dagadi Chawl,
          Taluka and District Dhule.                            Petitioners.

                  Versus



::: Uploaded on - 08/11/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2017 01:17:21 :::
                                      (2)                     WP No.5885/2004

 1.       Dhule Textile Mills (A unit of
          National Textile Corporation)
          Station Road, Dhule.  
          Through its General Manager.


 2.       Rashtriya Mill Mazdor Sangh
          R/o Netaji Chawl, Chalisgaon,
          District Jalgaon.
          Through its Secretary.                                 Respondents


                                     ***
 Mr. I.A. Chandorikar, Advocate holding for                                        
 Mr. P.R. Patil, Advocate for the petitioners.
 Mr. M.N. Nawandar, Advocate for respondent No.1.
 Mr. V.R. Mundada, Advocate for respondent No.2.
                                     ***


                                    CORAM :  RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
                                                              AND
                                                SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

Dated : 03-11-2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER RAVINDRA V. GHUGE) :-

1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners for some time. The petitioners have prayed that a direction be issued to Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangha, a registered Trade Union, that it should restrain from deducting 3% of the union contribution from the Voluntary Retirement ::: Uploaded on - 08/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2017 01:17:21 ::: (3) WP No.5885/2004 Scheme package. It is also prayed that respondent No.1-Dhule Textile Mills should be directed not to assist the Union in deducting the said contribution at source while making the payment of their Voluntary Retirement Scheme package.

2. We find that the Union had desired to deduct 3% from the Voluntary Retirement Scheme package as 'union contribution' on the ground that the Union had laboured and exerted for obtaining the Voluntary Retirement Scheme package for these workers. The dispute essentially is between the petitioners and their Union as the money to be deducted is to go to the Union as 'union contribution'.

3. Since we find that the petitioners have an efficacious statutory remedy and this Court cannot enter into a dispute between the workers and their Union registered under Trade Unions Act, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that this Petition may be disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to raise an industrial dispute under Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

::: Uploaded on - 08/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2017 01:17:21 :::

(4) WP No.5885/2004

4. Learned Advocates for the respondents have no objection.

5. Considering the above, this Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to raise an industrial dispute under Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the appropriate Authority. We make it clear that we are not expressing any view about the merits of the claims made in this petition.

6. Rule is discharged.

7. Pending Civil Applications do not survive and stand disposed of.




    ( SUNIL K. KOTWAL)                          ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE)
            JUDGE                                            JUDGE




 vdd/




::: Uploaded on - 08/11/2017                        ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2017 01:17:21 :::