Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. All these Writ Petitions have been admitted by this Court. The first four petitions have been filed by the employees and the last petition has been filed by the Sugar Factory at issue. For the sake of clarity, the worker petitioners would be referred to as the "Employees" and the employer would be referred to as the "Factory". 2. In all these petitions, the judgment impugned is dated 6.5.1997, delivered by the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) Nos. 2 of 1996 involving 64 employees, 3 of 1996 involving 6 employees, 4 of 1996 involving 74 employees and 5 of 1996 involving 66 employees. 3. These matters were argued by the learned Advocates for the respective sides on 14.1.2016, 15.1.2016, 28.1.2016, 4.2.2016, 9.2.2016, 11.2.2016, 16.2.2016, 18.2.2016, 24.2.2016, 25.2.2016, 1.3.2016 and 14.3.2016, when the matter was closed for judgment. 4. I have considered the extensive and lengthy submissions of the learned Advocates for the employees, the learned Sr. Advocate for the m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. On 16.7.2015, I had passed the following order: 1. Shri Shahane, learned Advocate submits that he was appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 34 in Writ Petition No. 2965 of 1998 and for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.2403 of 1998. Shri K.B.Borde, learned Advocate now appears for the said respondents / petitioners respectively.. He, therefore, prays for discharge. Shri Borde confirms his appearance. As such, the appearance of Shri Shahane is discharged. 2. Both these petitions have been admitted. 3. Shri Patil, learned Advocate along with Shri Navandar has commenced his submissions. During the course of his submissions, he has indicated that the dispute as regards distribution of monetary dues is concerned, the Apex Court by its order dated 21.3.1988 and subsequent orders delivered in Writ Petition No.575 of 1986 with Special Leave Petition No.4712 of 1986 has observed and directed as under:- In the writ petition there were two prayers: One was for a direction...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition was admitted by order dated 26.7.1991 and interim relief was granted to the petitioners in terms of prayer clause C-1 which reads as under:- Pending hearing and final disposal this writ Petition, the Judgment and order dated 26.6.1986 passed by learned President, Agricultural Land Tribunal Taluka Udgir in Case No.84/TNC/O/2 which is confirmed by Deputy Collector, Latur and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Aurangabad on 6.4.1987, 16.6.1990 respectively may be stayed. 2. The submissions of Shri Chincholkar, learned Advocate for the petitioners with regard to the Civil Proceedings as well as Revenue proceedings are as under:- A. DETAILS REGARDING REVENUE PROCEEDINGS : (a) The petitioners are the legal representatives of Maharudrappa Baslingappa Swami. (b) Maharudrappa Baslingappa Swami purchased land from Limbabai w/o Gurlingappa Swami by registered sale deed dated 15.10.1968. (c) The land purchased by Maharudrappa Baslingappa Swami falls in Survey No.116-A ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by the consent of the parties and heard finally. 2. This Court has considered the submissions of the rival parties at length. The petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 19.11.2013, delivered by the Industrial Court, Jalgaon in Complaint (ULP) No.38 of 2009, filed by the respondent. 3. A short issue has been raised for the consideration of this Court. In two other Writ Petition Nos. 741 and 745 both of 2013, this Court has decided a similar challenge on 24.9.2014, 4. The respondent was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in 1977. She passed her lower division grade examination on 30.3.1980 and later on she became eligible for promotion as Upper Division Clerk (UDC). On promotion, she was working as UDC till 1997, when she was transferred from Jalgaon to Parbhani. In order to continue at Jalgaon, due to personal reasons, she opted for a reversion from the post of UDC to LDC. She joined the office of the petitioners at Jalgao...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. By an order dated 04-09-2007, this petition was admitted. No interim relief was granted to the petitioner. 2. The contention of the petitioner in brief is as follows:- a] The petitioner joined in 1975 as a driver. b] On 15-02-1981, the petitioner was manning the bus which collided with two cyclists riding one bicycle. c] One of the cyclist suffered serious injuries. d] The petitioner was initially convicted by the Criminal Court in Criminal Case No. 6675 of 1981, and was sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of which he was to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. e] In Criminal Appeal No. 93/1987 filed by the petitioner against his conviction dated 24-09-1987, he was acquitted and his conviction was set aside by order dated 14-12-1990. f] A charge sheet cum show cause notice was issued on 02-05-1981 to the petitioner by the respondent. g] After concluding the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By these petitions, the issues raised for the decision of this Court are as follows: 1. Whether this Court, in its writ and/or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should entertain a proceeding under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (For short, M.C.S. Act), challenging the recovery certificate u/s 101, directly by avoiding or not resorting to the statutory remedy u/s 154 and section 154 (2A) of The M.C.S.Act ? 2. Whether the remedy u/s 154 r/w section 154 (2A) of the M.C.S.Act could be termed to be a statutory remedy available and not merely an alternate remedy ? 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has argued vehemently and at length that in the peculiarity of the facts of his case and relying upon reported judgments, the petitioner's case is fit enough to be entertained directly by this Court under its writ or supervisory jurisdiction without direc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The petitioners are challenging an interlocutory order dated 26/02/2014 below Exh.18, passed by the Joint Civil Judge, J.D. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad. 3. Contention of the petitioners is that the respondents have preferred RCS No.268/2013 before the Trial Court, seeking a declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction in respect of land Survey No.29/A admeasuring 2 Hectre 2 R, Survey No.30/A admeasuring 41R and Survey No.29/E to the extent of share admeasuring 44R. These claims alongwith other connected claims are set out in the claim petition of the respondents especially from paragraph Nos. 1 to 7. The petitioners have filed their reply / written statement to the plaint. An application for temporary injunction and temporary relief is admittedly not pending on the file of the Trial Court. 4. The respondents moved an application below Exh.18 seeking appoin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: (Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an employee with respondent No.1 State of Maharashtra, has assailed the norms laid down for the purposes of availing the benefit of 3% reservation provided for physically handicapped persons. Submission is, barring a person suffering from visual impairment is not in consonance with the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the "1995 Act") and also it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. The basic facts are not in dispute. The petitioner has passed his M.B.B.S. course as a physically handicapped person from Government Medical College and Hospital at Aurangabad in 2003. He had taken admission in 1998-99. The petitioner then completed compulsory internship and joined employment as a Medical Officer in 2006. In 2009 he passed M.P.S.C. examination...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
R.V. Ghuge, J. 1. The appellant, being aggrieved by order dated 22.11.2012, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2946/2012, has preferred this intra Court appeal for challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge. 2. Being a Letters Patent Appeal, we were not required to look into the matter threadbare, and reappreciate the entire evidence recorded before the Labour Court and the details as they emerge from the judgment of the Labour Court, Latur, as well as the Industrial Court, Latur. However, being conscious of the fact that this appeal gave an opportunity to the appellant to make an attempt to point out perversities and illegalities, if any, from the two judgments of the lower Courts and draw our attention to any perversity in the order of the learned Single Judge, we decided to look into the concurrent findings of the lower Courts. It is with this object that we have turned our attention to the first judgment that was delivered by the Labour Court, Latur, and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
U.D. Salvi, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 31.12.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.307/2009. 2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad convicted and imposed sentences on the appellants/ accused in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 on different counts as under: i) The appellants/ accused in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 were sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for six months each for commission of the offence punishable under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. ii) The appellant/ accused No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further S.I. for one month for commission of the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. iii) The appellant/ accused No.2 in Criminal ...
Tag this Judgment!