Bombay High Court
Satish Bhanudas Kamble And Others vs Municipal Corporation Latur ... on 25 February, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP 1810/16
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1810/2016
1 Satish s/o Bhanudas Kamble,
Age: 45 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Gandhi Nagar, Latur,
Tq. And Dist. Latur.
ig 2 Suresh s/o Mariba Kamble,
Age: 45 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Bodhe Nagar, Latur,
Tq. And Dist. Latur.
3 Balaji s/o Prakash Dhotre,
Age : 32 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Bhodhe Nagar, Latur,
Tq. And Dist. Latur.
4 Basawraj s/o Virbhadra Vore,
Age: 40 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Pochamma Galli, Latur,
Tq. And Dist. Latur.
5 Nitin s/o Ashok Sathe,
Deleted.
6 Sow. Laximi w/o Rajabhau Bansode,
Age: 38 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Labour Colony, Latur,
Tq. And Dist. Latur.
7
Ismail s/o Kasim Shaikh,
Age: 35 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Hamal Galli, Latur,
Tq. And Dist. Latur.
...Petitioners...
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:40:27 :::
WP 1810/16
- 2 -
Municipal Corporation, Latur,
District Latur.
Through its Commissioner.
...Respondent...
.....
Shri S.P. Urgunde, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri V.B. Jadhav, Advocate h/f Shri A.V. Hon, Senior
Advocate for respondent.
.....
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
ig DATE: 25.02.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
finally by the consent of the parties.
2] The petitioner seeks leave to delete petitioner
no.5 - Nitin Ashok Sathe. Leave to delete is granted at
the risk of the petitioners. Deletion be carried out
forthwith.
3] The petitioners in this petition are
complainants in Complaint (ULP) No.23/2009, which is
pending before the Industrial Court at Latur. In all, 34
persons are the complainants in the said complaint. Some
of the complainants had approached this Court against the
dismissal of their complaint by the judgment of the
Industrial Court dated 4.7.2014, in Writ Petition
WP 1810/16
- 3 -
No.6506/2014. The said petition was allowed by judgment
dated 31.8.2015 by this Court and Complaint (ULP)
No.23/2009 was remitted to the Industrial Court for a
fresh hearing.
4] Some out of the remaining complainants in the
said complaint lateron approached this Court in Writ
Petition No.11741/2015. By judgment dated 23.12.2015,
since the complaint was already remitted to the
Industrial Court, the petition was allowed and the
petitioners were permitted to participate in the hearing
before the Industrial Court.
5] Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits
that these six petitioners are also party to the same
Complaint (ULP) No.23/2009, which has been remitted and
which is being adjudicated upon by the Industrial Court.
As such, a statement is made on instructions that these
petitioners, who are complainants in the said complaint,
would adopt the entire oral and documentary evidence
adduced by the other complainants or the Union leader and
would cooperate with the Industrial Court for the
disposal of the said complaint as per the directions of
this Court.
WP 1810/16
- 4 -
6] Shri Hon, the learned Senior Advocate appearing
on behalf of the respondent - Corporation, has opposed
this petition. Contention is that out of the 34
complainants, two groups came before this Court in two
petitions. These petitioners have formed a third group
out of the same complainants. By the judgment of this
Court, the complaint is being adjudicated upon by the
Industrial Court within a time bound programme. If such
groups are permitted one after the other, the Industrial
Court will not be able to conclude the trial within the
period granted.
7] I have considered the submissions of the learned
Advocates.
8] By two earlier judgments dated 31.8.2015 and
23.12.2015 in Writ Petition Nos.6506/2014 and 11741/2015,
this Court has permitted the petitioners to prosecute the
Complaint (ULP) No.23/2009 as all of them are the
complainants in the same complaint. Considering the
statement of the petitioners that they would adopt the
oral and documentary evidence of the other complainants,
which may have been already recorded before the
Industrial Court, I do not find that these petitioners
WP 1810/16
- 5 -
would waste the time of the Industrial Court on account
of the delay caused in approaching this Court.
9] In the light of the above, this petition is
allowed. The petitioners are permitted to prosecute the
Complaint (ULP) No.23/2009 by recording their statement
that they do not desire to lead oral evidence
individually and would adopt the oral and documentary
evidence adduced by the other complainants in the said
complaint.
10] Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No
order as to costs.
(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
ndk/c25216.doc
