Mr. Kinshuk Gandhi And Anr vs Shivdhari Ramdev Prajapati
2017 Latest Caselaw 6260 Bom

sat                                                                           1/2                                               WP 9669-2016.doc

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                         WRIT PETITION NO.   9669  OF 2016

        Mr.Kinshuk Gandhi,
        Proprietor,
        M/s.Padmavati Enterprises                                                                        ...Petitioner
              vs.
        Shivdhari Ramdev Prajapati                                                                       ...Respondent

        Mr.V.P. Vaidya I/b. M.M. Agavekar for Petitioner. 
        None for Respondent. 

                                                                    CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.

                                                                    DATE     : 16 AUGUST 2017

        P.C.  : 

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Office record shows that though the Respondent is duly served, none appears for the Respondent.

2 Perused the order of this court dated 4 April 2017. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that though the court issued notices and at that time declined to grant any interim relief in favour of the Petitioner, the Petitioner again prayed for interim relief.

3 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was filed at a belated stage. It was the submission that even as per the submission of Respondent, his services were orally terminated on 10 April 2008 whereas the application was filed on 5 December 2009. Learned Counsel then submitted that except the claim for certain entitlement, such as privilege

sat 2/2 WP 9669-2016.doc

leave, overtime wages, there is absolutely no material placed on record along with the application supporting the claim or the entitlement of the Respondent for such claim. Learned Counsel then submitted that the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court failed to appreciate the factors, namely, there were two workers, and this fact was admitted in the cross-examination by the Respondent.

4 In view of the submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner, there shall be ad-interim stay in terms of prayer clause (b) until further orders of this court.

(PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)