Bombay High Court
Maharashtra Employees Union Throu. ... vs M/S City And Industrial Development ... on 3 September, 2025
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
6. CIVIL WP-17701-24.docx
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 17701 OF 2024
Maharashtra Employees Union & Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
City and Industrial Development Corporation of
Maharashtra Ltd & Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Paul Poulose & Mr. Biju Joseph i/by KLT Law Associates,
Advocates for Petitioners
Mr. Yogendra Pendse, Advocate for Respondents - CIDCO
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 3, 2025
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Poulose, learned Advocate for Petitioners and Mr.
Pendse, learned Advocate for Respondents - CIDCO.
2. In compliance with the order dated 09.07.2025, steps are taken
by both the parties to take the matter forward in respect of providing
the names and details of the 22 employees who were specifically
identified and in respect of whom computation and calculations were
given under the 3 beneficial heads by CIDCO for effecting
disbursement.
3. Today Mr. Poulose informs the Court that there is one
discrepancy which has occurred in the previous order with respect to
one employee namely Mr. N.G. Madvi whose name appears at Sr. No.
10 in the list appended to the order dated 09.07.2025. He would
1 of 5
6. CIVIL WP-17701-24.docx
submit that admittedly the said employee's name has been
inadvertently stated in the list and he is not an eligible employee
entitled to any benefit even as per the order passed by the Industrial
Court itself. Names of the employees in the 3 heads of computation
given by CIDCO have been mentioned in the said list at the instance of
CIDCO. However if the Judgment dated 12.10.2017 appended at page
Nos. 84-96, Exh. "D" of Petition is seen, the statement made by Mr.
Poulose appears to be correct. Name of Mr. N.G. Madvi does not
appear in the list of beneficiaries. In that regard, he has filed
additional affidavit on behalf of Petitioner - Union placing on record
the aforesaid fact as also made further submissions for compliance of
directions contained in the previous order with respect to the
remaining employees. It is seen that judgment dated 12.10.2017
pertains to retirement benefit to be given to 37 employees as
mentioned in Annexure-I of the Complaint and whose names were also
reflected in Exh. U-68 before the Labour Court. These 37 employees
had not received their dues from the Official Liquidator pursuant to
liquidation of the Company and therefore adjudication by virtue of the
aforesaid judgment was done by the Industrial Court, Thane.
Additional affidavit dated 03.09.2025 is filed by Petitioner Union
stating that out of the remaining employees, 12 employees' names
mentioned against Sr. Nos. 23 to 34 in the list annexed to the
2 of 5
6. CIVIL WP-17701-24.docx
judgment dated 12.10.2017 are entitled to receive their dues subject
to computation and calculation.
4. Mr. Pendse in compliance with the directions contained in the
previous order has placed on record copy of affidavit which was filed
by CIDCO before the Industrial Court during adjudication of the
Complaint. That copy of the affidavit dated 01.03.2017 encloses
details of 34 employees including the 22 employees who have been
identified and dealt with by this Court in its previous order. Their date
of joining, basic pay, DA, number of years of service and gratuity and
other benefits payable under the 3 heads of computation is given in
the lists which are appended to the said affidavit dated 01.03.2017
filed by CIDCO before the Industrial Court. The said affidavit was
filed by the Senior Accounts Officer of CIDCO and the data contained
in the affidavit is borne out from the record maintained by CIDCO
itself. Thus insofar as the remaining 12 employees are concerned, the
complete data in respect of disbursement is now available before the
Court.
5. In view of the previous order, I now direct the learned Registrar
of the Industrial Court to consider Annexure-II to the affidavit dated
01.03.2017 filed by CIDCO before the Industrial Court and on the
basis of computation and calculations given under the 3 heads after
due scrutiny disburse the amounts deposited to the remaining 12
3 of 5
6. CIVIL WP-17701-24.docx
workers by following the directions contained in the order dated
09.07.2025.
6. This now leaves 4 workers whose names though have appeared
in the judgment dated 12.10.2017, but details of whom are not
available. What is crucial and significant to note is that their
designations and last drawn salary by them for the purpose of
computation and calculations is required. Mr. Pendse would submit
that if the entire judgment is read as a whole, it can be gathered that
all workers were working in the same capacity and therefore the
computation which has been offered to the remaining workers should
also be offered to the remaining 4 workers and such directions be
passed by the Court. Prima facie I am not in agreement with this
submission because if the computation of 3 heads of calculations given
by CIDCO are seen they are calculated on the basis of date of joining
and last drawn salary and hence the benefit accruing to the 34
workers is in different denomination depending on their tenure and
last drawn salary. Hence, I direct the Petitioner Union to furnish the
details of these remaining 4 workmen if they are available with Union
to CIDCO and thereafter seek further orders of the Court.
7. Learned Registrar of the Industrial Court shall act on a server
copy of this order and ensure that disbursement to the 12 workers as
4 of 5
6. CIVIL WP-17701-24.docx
directed above by Court is done in the same manner as directed in the
previous order dated 09.07.2025 after due scrutiny.
8. Stand over to 17th September, 2025.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2025.09.04
16:22:22 +0530
5 of 5
