Bombay High Court
Yadavrao Pandurang Patil & 3 Ors vs Akola Mazdor Sangh & 6 Ors on 26 April, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 wp5120.03
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5120 OF 2003
1) Yadavrao s/o Pandurang Patil,
aged about 57 years,
occupation : Textile Mill Worker,
Guljarpura, Akola, Taluq and
District Akola.
2) Samadhan s/o Maroti Upadhye,
aged about 49 years,
occupation : Textile Mill Worker,
r/o Akhre Plots, Shivnagar,
Akola, Taluq and District Akola.
3) Ishwar Gamaji Dhandi, aged
abut 50 years, occupation :
Textile Mill Worker, Bhim Nagar,
Akola, Taluq and District Akola.
4) Ashok Maroti Gedam,
aged about 45 years,
occupation : Textile Mill Worker,
r/o Akot Fail, Ambedkar Chowk,
Akola, Taluq and District Akola. ... Petitioners
- Versus -
1) Akola Mazoor Sangh,
the Registered Trade Union,
through its President
Ranjeetsing s/o Gulabsing
Chungde, office at INTUC
Bhawan, Kholeshwar, Akola,
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:52:14 :::
2 wp5120.03
Taluq and District Akola.
2) Raysaheb Rekchand Gopaldas
Mohata Spinning & Weaving
Mills, through its General Manager,
Mohata Mill Compound,
Akola, Taluq and District Akola.
3) National Textile Corporation,
North Ltd., Maharashtra,
through its Managing Director,
N.T.C. House, Narottam Morarji
Marg, Baleards Pear, Bombay.
4) Registrar of Trade Union,
Office at Bhosla Chowk,
Nagpur, Taluq and District
Nagpur.
5) Union of India, through its
Textile Ministry, Parliament
House, Delhi.
6) State of Maharashtra, through
its Textile Ministry, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
7) Labour Officer, R.S.R.G. Mohata
Spinning & Weaving Mills,
Mohata Mills Compound,
Akola, Taluq and District Akola. ... Respondents
-----------------
Shri R.L. Khapre, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri S.C. Mehadia, Advocate respondent no.2.
Smt. H.N. Prabhu, Assistant Government Pleader for
respondent nos.4, 6 and 7.
----------------
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:52:14 :::
3 wp5120.03
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATED : APRIL 26, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) :
Heard Adv. Khapre for petitioners, Adv.
Mehadia for respondent no.2 and Smt. Prabhu, learned
Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.4, 6
and 7. Nobody appears for respondent nos.1, 3 and 5.
2) The petitioners are employees as defined in
Section 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act
and availed benefit of Voluntary Retirement Scheme
floated by their employer - respondent no.2 when it
was placed under respondent no.3 National Textile
Corporation. As respondent no.2 was running in loss,
respondent no.3 floated scheme for voluntary
retirement on Gujarat pattern and petitioners wanted
to avail benefit thereof. They learnt that out of amount
being offered to them, 5% would be deducted for
4 wp5120.03
payment to respondent no.1 trade union. They,
therefore, made a representation to the employer
pointing out that in voluntary retirement scheme, there
is no such stipulation and there was no agreement
between employer and respondent no.1 trade union
authorizing such deduction.
3)
When the representation was not looked into,
the present petition came to be filed and this Court on
23/12/2003 initially granted ad interim relief in terms of
prayer clause (ii) of the petition. On 19/1/2004, this
Court recorded that petition would be disposed of
finally at the stage of admission only. On 3/2/2004 as
service on respondents was not reported, matter was
adjourned and interim order was continued. On
10/3/2004 after hearing Adv. Khapre for petitioners,
Adv. Mehadia for respondent no.2 and learned Assistant
Government Pleader, rule was issued in the matter and
by a reasoned order, workers were directed to be paid
entire amount without any deduction.
5 wp5120.03
4) Adv. Khapre submits that accordingly entire
amount is paid to respective workers and petitioners.
According to him, in this situation, grievance is already
satisfied and hence, petition should be disposed of by
making rule absolute in terms of interim order.
5) Adv. Mehadia submits that respondent no.2
mill was closed down after offering voluntary retirement
scheme and is not functioning since last more than 10
years.
6) After hearing respective Counsel for the
parties, we find that when matter was heard by this
Court on various dates mentioned supra, nobody
appeared for respondent no.1 trade union. Thus,
assertions in the petition have remained
uncontroverted. The entire amount without any
deduction has been paid not only to petitioners, but
also to other workers. It is, therefore, obvious that rule
needs to be made absolute in terms of interim order.
6 wp5120.03
7) Accordingly we declare that petitioners are
entitled to receive full amount without any deduction
therefrom in favour of respondent no.1. The petition is
thus allowed and disposed of. No costs.
JUDGE ig JUDGE
khj
