Bombay High Court
Shri Raju S/O Gangadhar Giradkar vs M/S Krutika Plastic, Through Its ... on 6 October, 2021
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
1 36.WP.7721-2018 JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 7721 OF 2018
Shri Raju s/o Gangadhar Giradkar,
Aged about 49 years Occ. Nil,
R/o Near lichade Hanuman Temple
Gangabai Ghat Road Nagpur. PETITIONER
...Versus...
M/S Krutika Plastic
Through its Partner/Proprietor,
Raju Shamrao Nimje,
R/o Behind Jattewar Sabhagrih
Kamgar Nagar, Nandavan Nagpur. RESPONDENT
-----------------------------------------------
Shri D.A. Sonwane, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri D.M. Kakani, Advocate for the Respondent.
-----------------------------------------------
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATED : 06th OCTOBER, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard Mr. Sonwane, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Kakani, learned counsel for the respondent.
2 36.WP.7721-2018 JUDGMENT.odt
3. The award passed by the learned 2nd Labour Court,
Nagpur dated 25.07.2017, on a reference under Section 2A of
the Industrial Disputes Act, whereby, the same has been
answered in the negative, is the subject matter of challenge in
the present petition.
4. It is the contention of Mr. Sonawane, learned
counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner, who was the
brother-in-law of the respondent, was employed by the
respondent in his establishment from 01.08.1997 and was
illegally terminated orally on 31.5.2010, due to demand of the
salary of five months which was claimed to have been withheld
by the respondent, as a result of which, on approach notice
being given, the reference has been made which has been
answered in the above manner. Mr. Sonwane, learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the learned Labour Court,
Nagpur has erred in law, in not appreciating the documents
placed on record, in rendering the findings that there was no
relationship established.
5. Mr. Kakani, learned counsel for the respondent
3 36.WP.7721-2018 JUDGMENT.odt
submits, that the respondent, was never doing the business of
manufacturing of jewelry boxes, in which, it is claimed that the
petitioner was employed. The finding rendered by the learned
Labour Court, Nagpur, according to him is correct, and
therefore, no interfere is called for.
6. A perusal of the award as rendered by the learned
Labour Court, Nagpur would indicate, that after considering the
entire set of documents filed by the petitioner, and appreciating
the evidence of the parties, a categorical finding has been
recorded that the petitioner has failed to establish, a
relationship of employee and employer between the parties. The
learned Labour Court, Nagpur has found, that no documents
were placed on record, regarding any manufacturing business of
jewelry boxes by the respondent, so as to enable the Court to
arrive at a finding, that there was indeed a business of the
above nature being carried out by the respondent, for which,
there was a requirement of man power.
7. The reliance placed by Mr. Sonwane, learned
counsel for the petitioner on the cross-examination of the
4 36.WP.7721-2018 JUDGMENT.odt
respondent, to contend that there is an admission to the effect,
that the respondent used to send the petitioner, for collecting
orders and the amount collected by the petitioner, was sent to
the respondent by demand draft, is incorrect, for the reasons,
that the first sentence of the second last para of the cross-
examination at page No. 33, is in fact a denial of the above
position and not an admission at all. In my considered opinion,
the impugned award considers the entire position brought on
record, by way of documents and evidence, correctly and
therefore needs no interference.
8. The petition is therefore is misconceived and
dismissed.
9. The appropriate fees be remitted to Mr. Sonwane,
learned counsel for the petitioner, since the matter was allotted
him from the Legal Aid.
( AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
S.D.Bhimte
