Bombay High Court
The Chief Officer, Municipal ... vs Rajesh S/O Anandrao Puddatwar And ... on 28 September, 2022
Bench: Manish Pitale
1/3 930-WP 6066.2022 + 6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 6066 OF 2022
The Chief Officer, Municipal Council
vs.
Rajesh s/o Anandrao Puddatwar and others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6072 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION NO. 6067 OF 2022
WRIT PETITION NO. 6068 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION NO. 6069 OF 2022
WRIT PETITION NO. 6070 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION NO. 6071 OF 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. D. M. Kale, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S. M. Bhagde, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. N. R. Rode, Mr. N. R. Patil and Ms.Barabde, AGP for
respondent State in concerned petitions.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE J.
DATE : 28/09/2022
By these petitions, the petitioner
Municipal Council has challenged similar orders
passed by the Industrial Court, Chandrapur, whereby
an application for grant of temporary injunction filed
by the respondent employees have been allowed and
effect of which is that recovery proceedings sought to
be initiated by the Municipal Council have been
stayed.
KOLHE
2/3 930-WP 6066.2022 + 6
2. In all these petitions except Writ Petition
No.6072 of 2022, the respondent employees are
working as on today, while the respondent employee
in Writ Petition No. 6072 of 2022 has retired.
3. Even in the context of respondent
employees in all these petitions except in Writ Petition
No.6072 of 2022, it is an admitted position that
recovery is sought by the Municipal Council after a
long period of time of more than two decades of
granting particular pay scale to the respondent
employees. It is also brought to the notice of this
Court by the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent employees on caveat that some of them
are on the verge of retirement.
4. In these circumstances, when the
respondent employees moved the Industrial Court for
grant of interim injunction to restrain the Municipal
Council from recovering amounts allegedly wrongly
paid to them, the Industrial Court relied upon
judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of State
of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), AIR 2015
SC 696, and stayed the action of recovery initiated by
the Municipal Council.
KOLHE
3/3 930-WP 6066.2022 + 6
5. Although the learned counsel for the
Municipal Council tried to convince this Court that
the impugned orders deserve interference,
considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is convinced that a strong prima facie case
is made out by the respondent employees before the
Industrial Court and that therefore, the applications
filed on their behalf for grant of temporary injunction
during pendency of their complaints, were rightly
allowed by the Industrial Court.
6. In view of the above, it is found that there
is no merit in the present Writ Petitions. Accordingly,
the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.
7. The Industrial Court is directed to make
an effort to expeditiously dispose of the Complaints.
8. Needless to say, the Complaints shall be
decided on their own merits, without being
influenced by the impugned orders, as well as the
observations made by this Court in the present order.
JUDGE
Digitally signed byRAVIKANT
CHANDRAKANT KOLHE
Signing Date:29.09.2022
17:46
KOLHE
