Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. M. JOSHI
Santosh Keshavrao Shinde – Appellant
Versus
M/s Laxmi Riksha Auto Body Pvt Ltd – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R.M. JOSHI, J.
1. By consent of both sides, heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. Petitioners herein are the workmen of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 company and being aggrieved by rejection of statement of claim filed by them in Reference (IT) No. 06/2021 by order dated 04.01.2022 present petition is filed.
3. The facts which led to the filing of the petition can be narrated in brief as under :-
Petitioners are workmen of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Those respondents are private limited companies engaged in manufacturing of automobile parts and having manufacturing units at the addresses mentioned in title clause. Respondent No. 3 is Trade Union duly registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and claims to have been representing of workmen of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 company.
4. The case of the petitioners is that there are in all 56 workmen employed with respondent Nos. 1 and 2. There is allegation that though these two companies are shown as separate entities and have different registration under the Companies Act, but they are closely supervised, managed and controlled by same person and, therefore, a single unit. It is further claimed that the production unit of both compani
The court upheld the principle of collective bargaining, ruling that workmen represented by a union cannot independently file claims against their union, ensuring industrial peace and effective repre....
Recognised unions exclusively represent collective disputes under the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, prohibiting unrecognised unions from participation.
An unregistered trade union can represent workers collectively, and the status of employment should be determined by actual working conditions, not merely contractual labels, establishing permanent e....
Termination from service - Misconduct – As per provisions of ID Act at a time when Union had continued to enjoy its corporate body status cannot be said to be in any manner vitiated merely because Un....
A dispute between a principal employer and contractors' workers does not constitute a valid industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, due to the absence of an employ....
The court clarified that direct prior demands are not mandatory for initiating conciliation and that the contractor-worker relationship can be adjudicated in the context of unfair labor practices and....
To qualify as an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, collective involvement by employees or a union is required; individual disputes do not meet this criterion.
The validity of closure negates grounds for reinstatement unless framed properly within statutory provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act.
The court upheld the validity of a reference order made under the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing the administrative nature of such references and allowing the Tribunal to adjudicate claims from....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
