Bombay High Court
Rashtriya Engineering Mazdoor ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, ... on 30 June, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
3006WP3233.13-Judgment 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3233 OF 2013
PETITIONER :- Rashtriya Engineering Mazdoor Sangh, Plot
No.75, 1st Floor, NIT Layout, Trimurti Nagar,
Nagpur 440 022, Through its General
Secretary.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. The State of Maharashtra, Ministry of
Industries, Energy & Labour, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 440 032. Through its Secretary.
2. The Government Labour Officer, Office of
the Additional Commissioner of Labour,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3. M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Farm
Equipment Sector, MIDC Area, Hingna
Road, Nagpur 440 016 - Through its
General Manager.
4. Mohd. Aiyyaz,
5. Kishor Bhimrao Kukwas,
6. Nilkanth Nagorao Maske,
7. Narendra Bhauraoji Shirpurkar,
8. Pramod Nanaji Hiwanj,
Nos.4 to 8 elected as Elected
Representatives of Employees under
Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.
All C/o M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.,
Farm Equipment Sector, MISC Area, Hingna
Road, Nagpur 440016.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:43:48 :::
3006WP3233.13-Judgment 2/3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None for the petitioner.
Mr.K.L.Dharmadhikari, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 & 2.
R.B.Puranik, counsel for the respondent No.3.
None for the respondent Nos.4 to 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE
, JJ.
DATED : 30.06.2017
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner-sangh has challenged
the order of the Government Labour Officer, dated 20/06/2013
rejecting the objection of 163 labourers against the non-inclusion of
their names in the voters list for the elections to be held on
26/06/2013. The petitioner has sought a declaration that the 163
labourers are 'employees' under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act
and have a right to vote in the elections to be held on 26/06/2013 for
electing the representatives of the labourers. By amending the writ
petition, the petitioner has challenged the elections conducted on
26/06/2013.
Shri Puranik, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3,
states by referring to the prayer clause that the cause for filing the writ
petition is rendered infructuous, inasmuch as after the elections of the
year 2013 were conducted on 26/06/2013, fresh elections were again
3006WP3233.13-Judgment 3/3
conducted after two years on 26/06/2015 and thereafter on
24/06/2017. It is stated that though the petitioner has challenged the
order rejecting the objection dated 20/06/2013, the petitioner has not
challenged the subsequent elections dated 26/06/2015 and
24/06/2017. It is stated that in the aforesaid set of facts, the cause for
filing the writ petition is rendered infructuous.
On a reading of the petition and on a perusal of the prayer
clause, it appears that the petition was filed as the petitioner was
aggrieved by the non-inclusion of the names of 163 labourers in the
voters list that was prepared for the elections conducted on
26/06/2013. The term of the office of the elected members came to an
end after holding of the elections on 26/06/2015 and thereafter a third
body was elected in pursuance of the elections dated 24/06/2017. It is
apparent from a reading of the prayer clause that the cause for filing the
writ petition is rendered infructuous due to subsequent events.
Hence, we dispose of the writ petition with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
