Bombay High Court
Dilip Chabilal Chaudhari vs Mahindra And Mahindra Limited ... on 21 April, 2022
Bench: Manish Pitale
1/3 14&15-wp-1721-21,1722-22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1721 OF 2021
(Ishwardas S/o Ajabrao Borikar Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1722 OF 2021
(Dilip S/o Chabilal Chaudhari Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
Mrs. Shilpa Giratkar, Advocate for Petitioners
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : 21st APRIL, 2022
The petitioners in these two writ petitions have
challenged judgments and orders passed by the Industrial
Court at Nagpur. The petitioners have claimed that the
respondent - employer has indulged in unfair labour
practice under Item Nos.5 and 9 of the Maharashtra
Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair
Labour Practices Act, 1971 (M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act). In
writ petition No. 1721/2021, the petitioner claims to have
worked with respondent - employer between April 2004 to
November 2004 and in Writ Petition No.1722/2021, the
petitioner claims to have worked with respondent -
employer between August 1991 to March 1992, with certain
breaks in service.
MP Deshpande
2/3 14&15-wp-1721-21,1722-22
2. The complaints under Section 28 of the aforesaid Act
were admittedly filed before the Industrial Court in the year
2012.
3. In similar cases, where the complaints were preferred
by the employees after number of years against the very same
employer claiming unfair labour practices under the
aforesaid Act, this Court took into consideration the
entitlement of such employees to raise grievance, in the face
of the admitted fact that the employment had ceased years
ago.
4. In the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Sunil
Namdeorao Zade and another in Writ Petition No.7085 of
2019 and connected writ petitions, this Court by judgment
and order dated 27/11/2020, in identical circumstances
allowed the petitions and set aside the orders passed by the
Industrial Court granting relief to the employees. The
position of law in this regard was appreciated by this Court
in the said detailed judgment and after analyzing identical
facts in the light of the provisions of the said Act and
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this
Court, it was found that the said complaints could not have
been entertained by the Industrial Court.
MP Deshpande
3/3 14&15-wp-1721-21,1722-22
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not show
any distinguishing feature in the present petitions. Hence,
by relying upon the reasoning in the aforesaid judgment of
this Court passed in Writ Petition No.7085 of 2019, the
present writ petitions are dismissed.
JUDGE
Digitally signed by:MILIND
P DESHPANDE
Signing Date:22.04.2022
17:56
MP Deshpande
