Bombay High Court
Bilt Graphic Paper Products ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 18 April, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
wp3572.14
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 3572 OF 2014
BILT Graphic Paper Products Ltd.,
A company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956, having its
registered office at P.O. Ballarpur,
Distt. Chandrapur,
through its authorised signatory. .... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Deptt. Of Industries, Energy & Labour,
Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai-32.
2. The Assistant Labour Commissioner and
the President, Mathadi Board,
Chandrapur.
3. The Inspector,
Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal & Other Manual
Workers (Regulation of Employment & Welfare)
Act, 1969, New Administrative Building,
Chandrapur.
4. The Specified Officer
Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal & Other Manual
Workers (Regulation of Employment & Welfare)
Act, 1969, New Administrative Building,
Chandrapur.
5. Government Labour Officer & the Secretary,
Chandrapur Gadchiroli District Mathadi and
Unprotected Labour Board,
Chandrapur. .... RESPONDENTS.
Shri Sunil V.Manohar, Sr. Advocate, with Nikhil A Gaikwad Advocate for the
Petitioners.
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:48:41 :::
wp3572.14
2
Mr. Amit Balpande, AGP, for respondents 1, 2 & 5.
Mr. A.R. Patil Advocate for respondent nos. 3 & 4.
.....
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATED : 18.04.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally by consent of parties.
2. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner that the impugned order has been passed without granting
any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is also
submitted that the copy of complaint as well as copies of relevant
documents, as mentioned in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the writ petition,
have not been supplied to the petitioner and the result was that the
petitioner was not able to represent his case effectively before
respondent no. 4.
3. It is submitted by Shri Patil, learned counsel for
respondents 3 and 4 that opportunity of hearing was granted to the
petitioner, but the same was not availed of by the petitioner. In
support, he has taken me through the Roznama, which is at page no.
102 of the writ petition.
4. I have gone through the Roznama as well as relevant
documents. I find that the hearing as contemplated by Section 13(2)
of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Manual Workers' (Regulation of
Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 is a reasonable and adequate
wp3572.14
hearing and it appears from the Roznama that reasonable and
sufficient opportunity of representing the case of the petitioner has not
been granted to the petitioner. Therefore, the case deserves to be
remanded back to respondent no. 4 for deciding it afresh in
accordance with law. In such circumstances, the impugned order
cannot be sustained in law.
5. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is
hereby quashed and set aside. Case is remanded back to respondent
no. 4 for fresh decision in accordance with law. A proper and
reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the petitioner.
All the contentions of the parties on merits of the case are kept open
and shall be decided by respondent no. 4 in accordance with law.
Copies of documents sought by the petitioner, such as copy of the
complaint and other relevant documents, as mentioned in paragraphs
29 and 30 of the writ petition, shall be furnished to the petitioner within
two weeks from the date of appearance of the parties before
respondent no. 4.
Parties to appear before respondent no. 4 on 02.5.2016
at 10-30 a.m.
Rule made absolute in above terms. No costs.
JUDGE
/TA/
