Bombay High Court
Gajanan Santosh Pardhi vs Mahindra And Mahindra Limited ... on 26 April, 2022
Bench: Manish Pitale
1/3 915- wp-936-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 936 OF 2021
(Gajanan Santosh Pardhi Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1716 OF 2021
(Vinod Baburaoji Mohale 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. S.P. Giratkar, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. M.R. Puranik Advocate for Respondent
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : 26th APRIL, 2022
Insofar as Writ Petition Nos.936/2021 & 1716/2021,
are concerned, it is contended by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent - employer that the said
petitions deserve to be dismissed as the law laid down by this
Court in identical case between Mahaindra and Mahindra
Ltd., Nagpur Vs. Sunil Namdeorao Zade reported in
2021(3) Mh.L.J.589, completely covers the case against the
petitioners and in favour of respondent - employer. In the
said judgment also this Court was concerned with identical
complaints, where the employees claimed unfair labour
practices under items No.5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of
MP Deshpande
2/3 915- wp-936-2021
Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1972 (M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P.
Act). It was found in the said judgment concerning identical
facts that since the service of the employees with the
respondent company had ceased years before the complaints
were filed before the Industrial Courts, the complaints could
not have been entertained, much less any relief being granted
in favour of the employees. In Writ Petition No.936/2021,
admittedly the petitioner claims to have been employed with
the respondent - company between 10/11/1994 and
09/11/1995, while the complaint before the Industrial Court
invoking provisions of the said Act was admittedly filed on
27/11/2014.
2. Similarly, in Writ Petition No.1716/2021, the
petitioner claims to have been employed with the
respondent - company between 17/12/1998 to 16/12/1999
and the complaint was filed on 01/12/2014.
3. The aforesaid admitted facts of the present cases show
that the position of law regarding entertaining such
complaints before the Industrial Court under the provisions
of the said Act, is clearly covers against the petitioners and in
favour of the respondent - company, as per the reported
judgment in the case of Mahaindra and Mahindra Ltd.,
Nagpur Vs. Sunil Namdeorao Zade (supra).
MP Deshpande
3/3 915- wp-936-2021
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not bring
to the notice of this Court any distinction on facts, so as to
demonstrate that any other view can be taken in the matter.
5. Hence, for the reasons stated in the aforesaid reported
judgment concerning identical facts, the present writ
petitions are dismissed and the impugned judgments and
orders are confirmed.
JUDGE
Digitally signed by:MILIND
P DESHPANDE
Signing Date:27.04.2022
10:22
MP Deshpande
