Mumbai Aurangabad Court November 2013 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sunil Shamrao Thokal Vs. the Salvation Army, Evangeline Booth Hospital
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2013
1. Heard learned Advocate for the respective parties. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner-employee was appointed as a Store Keeper with the respondent-employer in 1989. On 19.12.1992, 12.5.1993 and 18.1.1994, the respondent issued charge sheets-cum-show cause notices to the petitioner, alleging negligence, improper maintenance and mis-appropriation against him. After conclusion of the domestic enquiry, he was issued with a second show cause notice dated 13.3.1995. The petitioner claims to have received the said notice on 25.3.1995. It is an admitted position that the dismissal order was dated 31.3.1995. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the dismissal order, filed Complaint (ULP) No.20 of 1995 before the Labour Court at Ahmednagar. It was alleged that the respondent did not wait for seven days' period, while dismissing the petitioner, which was provided to him to submit his reply to the second show c...
Mahendra Vs. the State Information Commissioner and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2013
1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the order passed by the State Information Officer, Nashik dated 27/03/2012 in Appeal No. 31/2011. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that, respondent No. 2 herein, filed application and sought certain information from the office of the petitioner under the Right to Information Act,2005 (for short, "said Act") on 30/11/2010. After receipt of the said application immediately the petitioner on 13/12/2010 forwarded the said application/part of the said application to the concerned Talathi and Block Development Officer and instructed them to provide the information required by respondent No. 2 to enable him to provide the same to respondent No.2 and accordingly, informed in this regard to respondent No. 2. It is further case of the petitioner that, respondent No. 2 in stead of filing first appeal before the first appellate authority, chosen wrong remedy and filed appeal before respondent No.1 by...
Suman Shivaji Dolas Vs. Ahmednagar Zilla Parishad
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2013
Per Court: 1. Heard Shri P.V. Barde, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Shri S.T. Shelke, learned counsel for the Respondent. 2. The Petitioner is wife of deceased employee Shivaji Dolas. 3. The deceased joined employment on 7th April, 1967 as a Mixer Attendant with the Respondent. While on duty, the deceased suffered an accident on 23rd October, 1967 resulting into amputation of his right hand wrist. The Respondent paid him compensation and continued him by giving an alternate job of oilman. The deceased performed his duties as an oilman till 1992. 4. According to the Petitioner, in 1990, after attaining the age of 55, he was referred to the medical board, which found him medially unfit for work. The deceased retired from services due to such unfit certification by the Medial Authorities. 5. The deceased demanded medical pensionary benefits, which are more than the normal pensionary benefits available to an employee under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. Sinc...
Mansub Bhagwat Khillare Vs. Parigabai Mansub Khillare
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. Though I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents at length, it is not necessary to discuss the rival contentions in depth in the view that I am taking. The petitioner who has been ordered to pay maintenance to his wife Parigabai and daughter Yogita the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein, by the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vaijapur under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, being aggrieved thereby had approached the Court of Sessions in revision challenging the said order. His revision application also came to be dismissed and therefore, he has approached this court invoking its Constitutional jurisdiction. 3. In the oral submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, his learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is a disabled person and that, he is not having sufficient means. According to the lea...
Jalindar Ganpat Lawate and Another Vs. Pravara Medical Trust, Loni, at ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2013
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petitions are heard finally. Both the petitions are taken up together for decision. 3. The question raised before me, in both the petitions is, as to "whether the Industrial Court can refuse to register a Revision (ULP) filed under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971?" ABOUT WRIT PETITION NO.6396 OF 2012 4. The petitioner in this petition is taking exception to the impugned order dated 7.7.2012, passed by the learned Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Rejected Application No.6 of 2012. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Revision Petition filed before the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar is refused registration by the Industrial Court on the ground that the impugned order in the Revision Petition is an interlocutory order passed by the Labour Court. The Revision Petition seeks to challenge suc...
Sangamner Nagar Parishad Vs. Tanaji Madhav Abhang
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2013
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. Brief facts leading to file present writ petition, as disclosed in this petition, are as under: The respondent herein, was working as Head Clerk with the Municipal Council, Sangamner. The respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No. 19 of 2006 before the Labour Court, Ahmednagar and contended that, he is illegally dismissed from the services on 04/04/2006 by the petitioner and inquiry held against him is not legal, fair and proper and order of dismissal is illegal. 3. The petitioner Municipal Council filed written statement before the Labour Court stating therein that, the respondent has committed serious misconduct thereby indulging himself in 150 proposals of Gunthewari and fabricated signatures of the Chief Officer on the said proposals and also committed serious illegalities/irregularities. 4. The Labour Court by the judgment and order dated 22/06/2012 dismissed the com...
Shakuntala Shamsing Mali and Another Vs. Housing Development Finance C ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-27-2013
Per Court: 1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. None appeared for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 though served. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the petitioners had borrowed loan of an amount of Rs.23,000/- from respondent No. 1/Bank. An amount of Rs.11,447/- was repaid to the said Bank. Balance amount of Rs.11,526/- stood in the loan account of the petitioners. 3. Respondent No.4, on 10/06/1988 purchased suit property of petitioner no.1 for an amount of Rs.1,93,000/- out of which an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was to be paid and Rs.13,000/- were earmarked to be paid to respondent No.1 bank as against existing loan amount of the petitioners. 4. Respondent/Bank initiated Spl.C.S.No.301/1996 before the learned Civil Judge, S.D. Nashik for recovery of the amount of Rs. 33,540/-. The petitioners, though served, did not participate in the said proceedings. Eventually, the learned Court decreed the suit of the respondent No.1/Bank on 19/03/1997 in the absence of the petition...
Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed Vs. the Assistant Labour ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-27-2013
Oral Judgment : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties. 2. Admitted fact emerging from the petition is that the judgment and order dated 23/08/2011 passed by respondent No.1 Assistant Labour Commissioner and Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Hereinafter referred to as "Gratuity Act"), Latur in P.G.A.No.19/2010 has been challenged. 3. Short point that arises for my consideration is as to whether the provisions of Section 7(7) r/w. the proviso thereunder of the Gratuity Act can be by-passed to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of The Constitution of India. 4. In early days, this scheme was introduced in those establishments only where the employers were so kind and generous to the workers or there was an agreement between the employers and the workers. This scheme was confined to the particular establishments and even within those establishments, to certain categories of staff. There was no ...
Bhagubai Walmik Khandagale and Another Vs. Social Forestry Department ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-26-2013
Oral Judgment:- 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties in both the petitions. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petitions are taken up for final disposal. 3. Shri Barde, learned Advocate for petitioners in both the petitions, while opening his submissions has stated that he would prefer to curtail the same to a very short point. He states that the date of the impugned Awards is 17.7.2010 passed in Reference cases IDA Nos. 13/2006 and 17/2006 respectively. The petitioners stood superannuated prior to the date of the awards. The References have been allowed partly to the extent of the petitioners having been granted reinstatement with notional continuity of services from the date of their termination but without back wages. 4. Shri Barde, learned Advocate further contends that the relief awarded in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, wherein the petitioners stood retired prior to it's deliverance has virtually rendered the awards ...
Machindra Chandrabhan Dange Vs. Siddhi Cnc Private Limited
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-25-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. Question raised before me is, "Whether it is expected of the Industrial Court to remand matters to the Labour Court, as a matter of routine course?" 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had filed Revision (ULP) No.49 of 2010 before the learned Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar challenging the correctness of the judgment and order dated 4.12.2010 and part-I order, on the legality of the domestic enquiry dated 4.2.2009., passed by the Labour Court, Ahmednagar. Vide the final judgment, the complaint of the petitioner was partly allowed on 4.12.2010, by the Labour Court. 5. The respondent was aggrieved only with the final judgment dated 4.12.2010 to the extent of the complaint of the petitioner having been partly allowed. The respondent supported Part I order dated 4.2.2009 but challenged the judgment dat...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »