Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh vs General Manager,Model Mills ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3979 Bom

       wp3618.01                                                                         1



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                              
                               NAGPUR BENCH

                        WRIT PETITION  NO.  3618  OF  2001




                                                      
      Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh,
      Kamgar Bhavan, Baidyanath




                                                     
      Square, Ghat Road, Nagpur,
      through its General Secretary.                    ...   PETITIONER

                        Versus




                                        
      1. General Manager,    
         Model Mills, Nagpur 
         (A Unit of National Textiles
         Corporation, Maharashtra
                            
         (North).  

      2. Chairman, National Textiles
         Corporation House, 15-N, 
         Morarji Marg, Mumbai - 38.
      
   



      3. Maharashtra State Industrial
         Court, Mumbai, Bench at
         Nagpur, Jakatdar's Bungalow,
         Civil Lines, Temple Road,





         Nagpur.

      4. State of Maharashtra,
         Department of Cooperation
         and Textile, through its 





         Principal Secretary, 
         Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.                       ...   RESPONDENTS



      Shri   S.P.   Dharmadhikari,   Senior   Advocate   with   Shri   S.C.   Nigot,
      Advocate for the petitioner.
      Shri R.B. Puranik, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
      Shri N.H. Joshi, AGP for respondent Nos. 3 & 4.
                          .....




    ::: Uploaded on - 21/07/2016                      ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 10:03:05 :::
        wp3618.01                                                                          2




                                                                               
                                     CORAM :       B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                                   KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

JULY 20, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

We have heard Shri S.P. Dharmadhikari, Senior

Advocate with Shri S.C. Negot, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Shri R.B. Puranik, learned counsel for

respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Shri N.H. Joshi, learned AGP for

respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

2. During arguments, we found that the learned

Member of the Industrial Court has not appropriately

appreciated the factors relevant for ascertaining whether the

Clause A of Exemption Notification dated 26.12.1990 is

attracted or not. Only extent of share holding and the

Constitution of Board of Directors, appears to have weighed to

return a finding that the mill is carried under the authority of

Central Government.

3. Shri Puranik, learned counsel has also submitted

that both clauses i.e. A & B of Exemption Notification needed to

be looked into and evaluated properly. He further added that

notice of change to seek extension of a statutory provision of

Maharashtra Workmen's Minimum House Rent Allowances Act,

1983, (hereinafter referred to as 1983 Act), could not have

been given and in any case a Reference to Industrial Court

under Section 73-A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act,

1946, could not have been filed directly by the petitioner -

Trade Union.

4. He has also invited our attention to a later

development viz., an agreement with representative Union

whereby the employer has agreed to give benefit of House Rent

Allowance (HRA) as per above enactment from 01.01.2000. He

contends that this agreement has come after the Specified

Authority functioning under Section 6 of 1983 Act allowed

house rent claim of about 521 workmen represented by the

petitioner union. According to him, in the wake of this

agreement and arrangement, notice of change itself is wiped

out. He also urged that if the agreement is accepted, the

petitioner and its members have already got what they wanted.

The award of Industrial Court, therefore, militates with said

grant and agreement.

5. We find that the factors urged by Shri

Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Advocate, relevant for finding

out whether the Exemption Notification is attracted or not as

also various submission made by Shri R.B. Puranik, learned

counsel, are not looked into in the Award.

6. In this situation, respective counsel, upon

instructions, fairly gave no objection for sending the matter

back before the Industrial Court. Therefore, without recording

more reasons, we set aside the Award dated 21.06.2001

delivered by Respondent No. 3 - Industrial Court and restore

Reference (BIR) No. 4 of 1998 back to its file for fresh

consideration. The parties are given liberty to make

appropriate amendment in their pleadings. After amendment,

the learned Member shall try to decide the Reference

proceedings afresh at the earliest and in any case within a

period of four months.

7. Accordingly, present writ petition is disposed of.

Rule accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of

the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

                                           
               JUDGE
                              ig                                           JUDGE
                            
                                                   ******

      *GS.
      
   












                                                                             
                                   C E R T I F I C A T E




                                                     

"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment."

Uploaded by : G. Shamdasani Uploaded on : 21.07.2016.