Sanjay S/O Mahadeorao Wankhede vs The Shaha Coolers Pvt. Ltd. Thr. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3452 Bom

wp 2251.23.                                                                                           1/2 4


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                                        Writ Petition No.2251/2023
                                    Sanjay V the Shaha Coolers Pvt. Ltd
***********************************************************************************
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders                    Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
***********************************************************************************
                 Mr. S.M. Wandre, Adv for petitioner.


                                          CORAM : AVINASH G GHAROTE, J.

DATE : 06-04-2023

Heard, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petition challenges the judgment of the Labour Court dated 24-09-19, whereby while partly allowing the complaint and setting aside the termination of the petitioner dated 4-6-15, the respondent is directed to pay full back-wages and other consequential benefits arising out of closure of business to the complainant/petitioner from his termination dated 4-6-15 till closure of the respondent establishment which happened on 30-9-15. A categorical finding has been rendered by the Labour Court while answering issue no.3 (para 13, pg 41) that the respondent establishment has been closed on 30-09-15 in regard to which intimation has been given to the Sales Tax Officer, E.S.I.C. and Additional Labour Commissioner and after perusing the same suitable orders have been passed by the Sales Tax Officer on 20-10-2015 (Exh. C-

wp 2251.23. 2/2 4

12). This finding has been confirmed by the Industrial Court in revision (para 16, pg 31). Nothing has been brought to my notice to enable me to take a different view other than what has been taken by the Court below regarding the closer of the respondent establishment.

3. In the light of the above position, I do not see any reason to interfere in the order impugned in this petition. The petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE

Deshmukh