Bombay High Court
Municipal Council Bramhapuri, ... vs Dhanraj S/O Manik Thakre on 23 August, 2021
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, G. A. Sanap
204-LPA-609-10 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.609 OF 2010
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2419 OF 2010
Municipal Council, Branhmapuri,
Through its Chief Officer, Bramhapuri, Tq. Brahmapuri, Dist. Chandrapur
-vs-
Dhanraj s/o Manik Thakare,
Adult, Occupation, Not known, R/o Nanhori Tq. Brahmapuri, Dist. Chandrapur
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
Shri R. J. Kankale, Advocate for appellant.
Shri B. M. Kharkate, Advocate for respondent.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND G. A. SANAP, JJ.
DATE : August 23, 2021
The challenge raised in this Letters Patent Appeal is to
the common judgment dated 14/09/2010 in Writ Petition
Nos.2419/2010 and 2436/2010. It may be mentioned that
against the judgment in Writ Petition No.2436/2010, the
present appellant had preferred Letters Patent Appeal
No.73/2011 which came to be dismissed on 25/02/2011 by
passing the following order :
" Heard.
The only contention, raised by the appellant-Municipal council
in this appeal, is that the learned Single Judge ought not to
have held that the complaint is tenable under the M.R.T.U. &
P.U.L.P. Act since there is a dispute about relationship of
employer-employee. We find from the judgment of the
204-LPA-609-10 2/3
learned Single Judge that the learned Single Judge (sic has)
not accepted the plea of the appellant inter alia on the ground
that no proper pleadings were set out to show how the
complainants were not employees of the Municipal Council
and they were the employees of the contractor particularly
when the complainants were working from the year 1992. The
learned Single Judge has observed that the appellant failed to
establish by any documentary evidence to show that the
respondents were working under the contractor. On the
contrary, R.W.2 Ramdas Thombre stated that there was no
document to show that they were working under the
contractor. The learned Single Judge has, thus, upheld the
findings of fact considered by the two Courts below. We see
no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single
Judge. Hence, the appeal is dismissed."
We find that the Labour Court had decided two
complaints by its common judgment dated 16/03/2006 which
orders thereafter were confirmed by the Industrial Court. Both
the writ petitions were decided by common judgment dated
14/09/2010. Hence the adjudication of Letters Patent Appeal
No.73/2011 would govern this Letters Patent Appeal. This is for
the reason that while deciding both the writ petitions together
the evidence of the witnesses were appreciated and said aspect
also finds place in the order passed in Letters Patent Appeal
No.73/2011. In that view of the matter since the present Letters
204-LPA-609-10 3/3
Patent Appeal arises from common judgment of the learned
Single Judge dated 14/09/2010 which stands confirmed in so
far as Writ Petition No.2436/2010 is concerned, this Letters
Patent Appeal is dismissed for the reasons stated in Letters
Patent Appeal No.73/2011. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Asmita
