The State Of Mah. & Ors vs Vinod Vishnupant Bandale
2016 Latest Caselaw 7247 Bom

                                                                     WP/3452/1997
                                            1

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                             
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 3452 OF 1997




                                                     
                                          WITH
                           CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3107 OF 2003

     1. The State of Maharashtra




                                                    
     2. The Assistant Engineer
     Sub Divisiona No.II,
     Minor Irrigation Division,
     Hingoli, Dist. Parbhani.




                                          
     3. The Executive Engineer,
     Minor Irrigation Divison,ig
     Parbhani.                                        ..Petitioners

     Versus
                            
     1. Vinod Vishnupant Bandale,
     Age major, Occ. Service
     R/o Near Jamadar Well,
     Mangalwara, Hingoli,
      

     District Parbhani.

     2. Member,
   



     Industrial Court,
     Jalna.                                            ..Respondent
                                         ...
                      AGP for Petitioners : Shri S.P.Sonpawale





                  Advocate for Respondent 1 : Shri Pradeep Shahane
                        Advocate for Respondent 2 : Deleted

                                           ...
                              CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Dated: December 15, 2016

...

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. Respondent No.2 being the Industrial Court, stands deleted

from the proceedings.

WP/3452/1997

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment dated

13.6.1997, delivered by the Industrial Court, Jalna, by which,

Complaint (ULP) No.53 of 1994 (Old No.65 of 1988) has been allowed.

While admitting this petition on 1.9.1997, interim relief was refused

to the petitioners.

3. Shri Shahane, learned Advocate for the respondent / employee

has placed on record a compilation of documents (six pages),

indicating that the petitioners have complied with the directions of

the Industrial Court in totality, the respondent has been granted all

benefits accordingly and he has also superannuated from service on

31.8.2014. The said documents are collectively marked as Exhibit "X"

for identification.

4. Considering the above and despite the strenuous submissions

of the learned AGP, I do not find it appropriate to reopen the entire

issue and more so in the light of the fact that the impugned

judgment and directions of the Industrial Court are squarely within

the Scheme made applicable through the Kalelkar Settlement and

which is still in vogue. The directions impugned do not amount to

any contravention of the terms of the Kalelkar Settlement and hence

the judgment is sustainable.

5. In the light of the above, this petition, being of devoid of

WP/3452/1997

merits is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.

6. Pending Civil Application, stands disposed off.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

...

akl/d