Bombay High Court
Ballarpur Industries Ltd., ... vs Maharashtra Lok Kamgar Sanghatna ... on 20 August, 2021
Bench: Manish Pitale
24-wp2739.21.odt
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2739 OF 2021
Ballarpur Industries Ltd.
-Vs.-
Maharashtra Lok Kamgar Sanghatna and onother
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.M.G.Bhangde, Sr. Counsel a/b Mr. R.E.Moharir, counsel
for the petitioner.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : 20.08.2021
CIVIL APPLN. (W) NO. 1123 OF 2021.
This is an application seeking leave to amend
the petition, in order to add an additional ground of
challenge in the writ petition.
2. Since the petition is at pre-notice stage, no
prejudice will be suffered by the respondents if the
application is allowed.
3. Accordingly, the application is allowed and
disposed of. The amendment be carried out within a
period of one week from today.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2739 OF 2021
Heard the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner.
KHUNTE
24-wp2739.21.odt
2. It appears that respondent No.2 i.e. Member,
Industrial Court, Maharashtra Bench at Chandrapur has
been inadvertently added as a respondent in the array
of respondents. The learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioner submits that the said respondent may
be deleted from the array of the parties.
3. Accordingly, respondent No.2 stands deleted
from the array of the respondents. The amendment be
carried out within a period of one week.
4. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged
judgment and order dated 07/12/2019, passed by the
Industrial Court at Chandrapur, thereby a complaint
filed by the respondent-Union has been allowed,
holding that the petitioner has indulged in unfair labour
practice under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971. It is
further directed that the 43 workers, whom the
respondent-Union purported to represent, are entitled
for relief of permanency with effect from the date of the
complaint with consequential benefits.
5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that in the present case, there was
not even an iota of evidence to indicate that the said 43
workers were members of the respondent-Union and
that therefore, the Industrial Court erred in granting
relief in favour of the said workers. It is also submitted
that the 43 workers with which this petition is
KHUNTE
24-wp2739.21.odt
concerned are not doing the work similar to the work
being done by regular employees. On the merits of the
matter, it was submitted that although the Industrial
Court recognized that the burden was on the
respondent-Union to show that the workers had
completed 240 days of continuous service in a year, the
manner in which the Industrial Court reached findings
in favour of the workers demonstrated that an adverse
inference was drawn against the petitioner for allegedly
having failed to produce relevant record pertaining to
the service of the workers. It was brought to the notice
of this Court that record available from the year 2007 to
2016 was indeed placed before the Industrial Court. It
was submitted that such an adverse inference could not
have been the basis for grant of relief to the said
workers.
6. Issue notice, returnable on 20/09/2021.
7. In the meanwhile, there shall be ad interim stay
in terms of prayer clause (2).
8. Statement of the learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner is recorded that during the
pendency of the present writ petition, the employment
of the said 43 workers with the petitioner-Company
shall not be disturbed.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties.
JUDGE
KHUNTE
