SANDEEP V. MARNE
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation Through its Municipal Commissioner, PCMC – Appellant
Versus
Ravi Arjun Jagte, Yamuna Nagar, Nigdi, Pune – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation-Petitioner is aggrieved by orders passed by Industrial Court, Pune, in entertaining Complaint (ULP) No.139 of 1999 filed on behalf of persons, whom it brands as ‘contractors’, by rejecting the preliminary objection of maintainability vide order dated 22 November 2002. It is also aggrieved by the final judgment and order dated 30 January 2023 allowing the Complaint and declaring that the Complainants are employees of the Petitioner-Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (PCMC). The Industrial Court has further directed the Petitioner-PCMC to absorb Complainants in service from the dates of their initial joining alongwith arrears of wages on par with its permanent employees doing similar work. Accordingly, Writ Petition No.4931 of 2003 is filed challenging the order on preliminary issue dated 22 November 2002 whereas Writ Petition No.1860 of 2024 is filed challenging the final judgment and order dated 30 January 2023.
2. Narration of few basic facts leading to filing the Petitions would be necessary. Petitioner is a Municipal Corporation established under the provisions of Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (MMC Act). Petiti
Tukaram Tanaji Mandhare & Anr. vs. Raymond Woollen Mills Limited & Ors.
Cipla Limited vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union & Ors.
Sarva Shramik Sangh vs. Indian Smelting and Refining Company Limited and others
Balwant Rai Saluja and another vs. Air India Limited and others
Central Bank of India c Ltd. v. P.S. Rajagopalans
Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station v. Hind Mazdoor Sabha
Vividh Kamgar Sabha vs. Kalyani Steels Ltd. (2001) 2 SCC 381 : 2001 sCC (L&S) 436
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others
State of Mysore vs. S.V. Narayanappa
R. N. Nanjundappa vs. T. Thimmaiah
B.N. Nagarajan vs. State of Karnataka
The Municipal Council, Tirora and another vs. Tulsidas Baliram Bindhade
Hari Nandan Prasad & Anr. vs. Employer I/R to Management of FCI and Another
U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. vs. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh
The court ruled that quasi-contractual arrangements do not preclude establishing employment status; the absence of a true contractor allows claims under MRTU & PULP Act.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for contract labourers to comply with the terms and conditions stipulated for regularisation and permanent absorption, including....
The Conferment of Permanent Status Act did not apply to the employees of the Board, and the Labour Court erred in granting retrospective regularisation without adjudication of disputed issues.
The court confirms that eligibility for absorption of contract workers must be evaluated against their documented employment in abolished categories under the Industrial Disputes Act and associated g....
Absorption of contract labour on an 'as-is-where-is' basis excludes claims for prior service benefits; delay and laches bar belated attempts to assert such claims.
Workmen - Maintainability of Writ - There is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution ordinarily writ petition should be filed within a reasonable....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.