Bombay High Court
M/S. Bhor Industries Ltd vs Mohan Sampat Mane And Ors on 10 March, 2021
Bench: K.K. Tated, R. I. Chagla
2 WP 6240-17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6240/2017
M/s Bhoir Industries Ltd. .. Petitioner
vs.
Shivaji Vishnu Kale & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WP NO.6252/2017, WP NO.6241/2017, WP NO.6237/2017, WP
NO.7183/2017, WP NO.6243/2017, WP NO.6248/2017, WP
NO.6251/2017, WP NO.6236/2017, WP NO.6239/2017, WP
NO.6245/2017, WP NO.5999/2017, WP NO.6238/2017, WP
NO.6008/2017, WP NO.7184/2017, WP NO.6242/2017, WP
NO.5998/2017, WP NO.6007/2017, WP NO. 7187/2017, WP
NO.6256/2017, WP NO.6253/2017, WP NO.7192/2017, WP
NO.6250/2017, WP NO.6244/2017, WP NO.6246/2017, WP
NO.7182/2017, WP NO.162/2018, WP NO.6247/2017, WP
NO.6257/2017, WP NO.6298/2017, WP NO.7190/2017, WP
NO.7191/2017, WP NO.7188/2017, WP NO.7189/2017, WP
NO.7185/2017, WP NO.7186/2017, WP NO.6249/2017, WP
NO.6255/2017, WP NO.4895/2017, WP NO.7194/2017 AND
WP NO.7193/2017
.....
Mr. Kiran Bapat a/w Jayesh Desai i/b M/s Desai & Desai
Associates for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. S. Panchpor with Mrs. P. J. Gavhane AGP for the
State.
.....
CORAM: K.K.TATED, &
RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 10, 2021
P.C.
. Heard.
2. By these Petitions, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging the
order dated 08/11/2016 passed by the Respondent No.3
making the reference under Section 12(5) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
Laxmi 1/5
2 WP 6240-17.odt
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that,
they have retrenched some of the Respondents from
30.06.2001. Being aggrieved by the said retrenchment,
some of the Respondents had fled Complaint (ULP) No. 84
to 104/2001 before the Industrial Court, Maharashtra,
Satara u/s 28 read with Item 9 and 10 of Schedule-IV of the
MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, wherein the complainant had
prayed for a relief of retrenchment effected from
30.06.2001 be declared as illegal, unjust, improper and
void-ab-initio. They also prayed for the directions to the
Petitioner to reinstate the Respondents - complainants with
continuity of service and full back wages. They also made a
prayer restraining the Petitioners from selling,
transferring, alienating and mortgaging the plant and
machinery till the claim of the Respondents - claimants is
fully satisfed.
4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that,
the said complaint was decided by the Industrial Court by
order dated 01/11/2002 and declared that the Petitioners
are engaged in unfair labour practices under Item 9 and 10
of the Schedule - IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 and
directed the Petitioners to pay the arrears of the wages and
future wages to all the complainants. The operative part of
the said order reads thus:
"i) The complainants are allowed.
ii) It is hereby declared that the respondent
have engaged in unfair labour practice under
Laxmi 2/5
2 WP 6240-17.odt
item 9 and 10 of Schedule-IV of MRTU & PULP
Act, 1971.
iii) The respondents are hereby directed to
desist from unfair labour practice.
iv) The respondents are hereby directed to
pay the arrears of the wages and future wages
of the complainants till the date, the services of
these complainants are legality terminated.
v) The respondents are hereby restrained
from removing transferring, alienating and
mortgaging the machinery till the date of
implementation of present order.
vi) No order as to costs."
5. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that,
the Petitioners have challenged the said order before this
Court by way of Writ Petition No. 7425 of 2002. He submits
that in that matter they have fled the consent terms on
01/08/2003 and the same was accepted by this Court. The
consent terms dated 01/08/2003 reads thus:
"CONSENT TERMS
The Petitioner and the Respondents herein
have amicably settled the Dispute on the
following terms:
(A) By consent of the parties the Judgment
and Order dated 01/11/2002 passed by the
Industrial Court, Satara in Complaint (ULP)
No. 84 to 104 of 2001 is hereby quashed and
set aside. The complaints ULP NO. 84 to 104 of
2001 fled before Industrial Court, Satara
stands dismissed. The Respondents agree that
Satara Unit is a separate unit and the closure
of it is legal and justifed.
Laxmi 3/5
2 WP 6240-17.odt
(B) The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.
14,000.00 each to Respondent No.1 to 2021.
This amount is being paid as a commercial
expediency to avoid costly litigation.
(C) The Respondent No. 1 to 21 declare that
they had no claim of whatsoever nature
against the petitioner including the claim of
retrenchment, continuity of service, back
wages etc.
(D) The Respondent No. 1 to 21 will be paid
14,000.00 each as mentioned in (B) above
within 30 days after the agreement being
signed and fled.
(E) The Writ Petition stands desposed of
with no order as to costs."
He submits that thereafter, the Petitioners have paid
an amount to those complainants.
6. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that,
after more than 14 years those complainants and the other
workers have fled the demand under The Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. On the basis of that, a reference under
Section 12(5) of the said Act registered. The same is
challenged by the Petitioner before this Court. He submits
that at that time, while making reference, the Authority has
failed and neglected to consider the fact that the demand
was fled after more than 14 years. Not only that, some of
the Respondents-workers already accepted compensation as
per the consent terms fled in writ petition no. 7425/2002.
7. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that,
the next date before the Labour Court at Satara is in the
Laxmi 4/5
2 WP 6240-17.odt
frst week of April and the Court is insisting to go on with
the matter. Hence, there is urgency. He submits that the
Petitioners are ready and willing to serve the Respondents
by private notice. The same is permitted.
8. Hence, the following order:
a. The Petitioners are permitted to serve the
Respondents with all papers by private notice by speed post
and or hand delivery and fle an affdavit of service to that
effect on or before 25/03/2021.
b. Liberty granted to the State to fle their reply on or
before 25/03/2021, with copy to other side.
c. If an affdavit of service is fled, matter to appear on
board on 31/03/2021, else, as per 'CIS' date.
( RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)
Laxmi 5/5
