PRATAP RAMCHANDRA JADHAV v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In view of the above, this petition is disposed off with the liberty
Provisions considered
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ss. 2(j), 2(s)
Key paragraphs
- Para 0202. Considering the above, we find that as the petitioner claims to be a Safai Kamgar and would fall within the definition of “Workman” under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as a “Worker” under section 2 (zr) of the Industrial Relations Code…
- Para 0303. In view of the above, this petition is disposed off with the liberty to the petitioner to avail of the remedy as is prescribed in law. [ANIL L. PANSARE,J.] [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,J.] snk/2022/JUN22/wp5204.22
Judgment
Mr.D.R. Irale Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent/State. CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ. DATED : 13.06.2022 PC :-
By this petition, the petitioner has put forth prayer clauses (B), (B1) and (C) , which read as under :-
B) The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass appropriate order & issue directions in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or a writ in like nature & direct the Resp. No.2 Commissioner to act upon the resolution no.45 passed by the standing committee in its meeting held on 30.08.2010 & also the compliance of commitment made before the Hon’ble High Court when the W.P. No.4240 of 2011 withdrawn on the grounds of settlement and reinstate the petitioner in service cancelling the impugned termination order dt. 26.07.2007. B1) The Hon’ble court may be pleased to pass necessary order & direct the Resp.no.2 in case Corporation desires approval of the ( 2 ) wp5204.22 Govt. the Corporation to move the proposal & Govt. will accord approval to make the compliance of Resolution No.45 passed by the standing committee on 30.10.2008. C) The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue directions to the Resp. no.2 to make compliance of resolution no.45 passed by the standing committee in its meeting held on 30.08.2010 & also the compliance of commitment made before the Hon’ble High Court when the W.P. No.4240/2011 withdrawn on the grounds of settlement and reinstate the petitioner in service cancelling the impugned termination order dt. 26.07.2007 within time limit.
Considering the above, we find that as the petitioner claims to be a Safai Kamgar and would fall within the definition of “Workman” under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as a “Worker” under section 2 (zr) of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020) and the respondent being Aurangabad Municipal Corporation which is an “Industry” under section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act (as an “Industry” under section 2(p) of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020), he can espouse his cause against his purported illegal termination by raising an industrial dispute under section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (under section 4(9) of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020), which is deemed to be an industrial dispute. ( 3 ) wp5204.22
Operative part
In view of the above, this petition is disposed off with the liberty to the petitioner to avail of the remedy as is prescribed in law. [ANIL L. PANSARE,J.] [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,J.] snk/2022/JUN22/wp5204.22
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above, this petition is disposed off with the liberty
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — ss. 2(j), 2(s).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 13 Jun 2022. The bench was ANIL L PANSARE, RAVINDRA V GHUGE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.