Powerloom Industrial ... vs Anant Murlidharrao Kulkarni.& ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3892 Bom

                                         1




                                                                          
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY   
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                  
                            WRIT PETITION NO.4325 OF 1995

    Vikas Powerloom Co-operative Society,
    Latur, 




                                                 
    Through its Liquidator Mr.K.D.More                 --       PETITIONER

    Versus




                                        
    Adinath S/o Namdeo Shinde,
    Age-50 years, Occu-Nil,
    R/o Latur                  ig                      --       RESPONDENT

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4326 OF 1995

Samrat Powerloom Co-operative Society, Latur, Through its Liquidator Mr.K.D.More -- PETITIONER

Versus

Digambar S/o Shivling Uddarwar, Age-50 years, Occu-Nil, R/o Latur -- RESPONDENT

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4327 OF 1995

Vijay Powerloom Co-operative Society, Latur,

Through its Liquidator Mr.K.D.More -- PETITIONER

Versus

Kalba S/o Natha Suryawanshi, Age-50 years, Occu-Service, R/o Kanheri Lamantanda, Latur -- RESPONDENT

WITH

khs/JULY 2016/4325-d

WRIT PETITION NO.4677 OF 1995

Powerloom Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd., Latur, Dist.Latur Through its Liquidator Mr.K.D.More -- PETITIONER

Versus

1. Anant Murlidharrao Kulkarni, Age-38 years, Occu-Service, R/o Latur,

2. General Manager/Director, (Powerloom) Marathwada Development

Corporation, Aurangabad,

3. Managing Director,

Marathwada Textile Corporation, Dhanegaon, Nanded -- RESPONDENTS

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4679 OF 1995

Powerloom Industrial Co-operative Society

Ltd., Latur, Dist.Latur Through its Liquidator Mr.K.D.More -- PETITIONER

Versus

1. Manohar S/o Bhujayya Vibhute, Age-42 years, Occu-Service, R/o Deshpande Galli, Wada of Bapurao Pande, Latur

2. General Manager/Director, (Powerloom) Marathwada Development Corporation, Aurangabad,

3. Managing Director, Marathwada Textile Corporation, Dhanegaon, Nanded -- RESPONDENTS

WITH

khs/JULY 2016/4325-d

WRIT PETITION NO.4680 OF 1995

Powerloom Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd., Latur, Dist.Latur Through its Liquidator Mr.K.D.More -- PETITIONER

Versus

1. Prakash S/o Shrinivasrao Patil, Age-40 years, Occu-Service, R/o Latur,

2. General Manager/Director, (Powerloom) Marathwada Development

Corporation, Aurangabad,

3. Managing Director,

Marathwada Textile Corporation, Dhanegaon, Nanded -- RESPONDENTS

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4682 OF 1995

Powerloom Industrial Co-operative Society

Ltd., Latur, Dist.Latur Through its Liquidator Mr.K.D.More -- PETITIONER

Versus

1. Amarkant S/o Vithalrao Kharosekar, Age-40 years, Occu-Service, R/o Datta Mandir, Latur,

2. General Manager/Director, (Powerloom) Marathwada Development Corporation, Aurangabad,

3. Managing Director, Marathwada Textile Corporation, Dhanegaon, Nanded -- RESPONDENTS

Mr.B.N.Patil, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.T.M.Venjane, Advocate for the respondent in WP No.4326/1995.

khs/JULY 2016/4325-d

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

DATE : 18/07/2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner in all these matters are aggrieved by the

judgments dated 12/12/1994 and 05/10/1994 delivered by the

Labour Court, Latur in a group of Application (IDA) Nos.157/1993,

158/1993, 159/1993, 106/1992, 101/1992, 99/1992, 227/1993

respectively.

2. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides for

quite some time.

3. Mr.Patil, learned Advocate for the petitioners has strenuously

criticized the impugned judgments. Contention is that issue No.1

framed by the Labour Court has not been properly considered and

the impugned orders reflect non application of mind. He, therefore,

submits that though the service tenure of the respondents employees

and their claims for special allowance may not be disputed, the fact

remains that since the petitioner/society was in liquidation, no

proceedings before any Court could be entertained in lieu of the bar

u/s 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

khs/JULY 2016/4325-d

4. Learned Advocate Mr.Venjane has supported the impugned

orders.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates.

6. This Court has, in the matter of Baburao Dadarao Kolhe and

others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2004(2) Mh.L.J. 898,

dealt with a similar issue considering the claim of the workers for the

unpaid wages during the pendency of liquidation proceedings. The

learned Division Bench concluded that as the claim of the workers

was not in relation to the business of the society and was purely a

claim of wages, it was not necessary to array the liquidator or seek

permission of the liquidator. Even if, such permission was sought, it

should be granted.

7. In the light of the above and considering the passage of 21

years, I do not find any reason to cause interference with the

impugned judgments.

8. These petitions, being devoid of merit, are therefore dismissed.

Rule is discharged.

khs/JULY 2016/4325-d

9. Civil applications, if any, do not survive and hence are disposed

of.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

khs/JULY 2016/4325-d