IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.9542 OF 2018

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5644 OF 2019

IN WP/9542/2018

Nagraj Janardan Patil,

Age 66 years, Occupation Farmer,

R/o 182, Bhikamchand Jain Nagar,

Jalgaon.

...Petitioner

VERSUS

Jalgaon Jilha Sahakari Dudh Utpadak

Sangh Limited, Jalgaon.

...Respondent

…..

Advocate for Petitioner

: Party in person

Senior Counsel for Respondent

: Mr. V. D. Hon i/b

Mr. A. V. Hon

…..

CORAM : SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

Date of Reserving the Order

:

10-06-2021

Date of Pronouncing the Order

:

08-07-2021

ORDER :

1.

Present petitioner/ party-in-person is challenging the Judgment and

order passed in Revision Application (ULP) No.177 of 2001 by learned

Member Industrial Court, Jalgaon on 25-04-2018 whereby the said

revision application filed by the present respondent came to be allowed

2

WP Civil 9542-2018

and the Judgment and order dated 17-05-2001 on issue No.7 in

Complaint (ULP) No.42 of 1999 passed by Labour Court, Jalgaon came

to be set aside.

2.

Before turning to the submissions, the checkered history is

required to be noted. It is not in dispute that the present petitioner

was in the employment of the respondent Sangh as Chief Security

Officer since 1988. Prior to that, he had retired from Indian Air Force.

Further, the administration of the respondent Sangh was taken over by

National Dairy Development Board on 11-09-1995. The further fact is

that the charge-sheet was served on the petitioner on 03-07-1996

which was signed by the Administrator Mr A. K. Josef. It is also not in

dispute that there are Model Standing Orders in view of the Bombay

Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Rules, 1959. Thereafter on

18-12-1999 the services of the present petitioner came to be

terminated. The present petitioner had filed said complaint (ULP) No.42

of 1999 under Item No.1 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition OF

Trade Union AND Prevention OF Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971

(hereinafter referred to as, ‘MRTU and PULP Act” for the sake of

brevity). The further fact that is required to be noted is that though

the issues were framed, issue No.7, “Does the respondent prove that

the complainant is not an employee within the meaning of Section 3 (5)

3

WP Civil 9542-2018

of the MRTU and PULP Act and a workman within the meaning of

Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act ?,” was treated as an

important issue and evidence was adduced by the respondent. After

considering the evidence, the learned Labour Court had given the

finding to the said preliminary issue No.7 as “Not Proved”. That order

was challenged by respondent Sangh in Revision Application (ULP)

No.177 of 2001. The learned Industrial Tribunal on 10-12-2001, on

hearing both sides, confirmed findings on the said issue No.7 dated 17-

05-2001. Thereafter, the respondent Sangh had approached this Court

by filing Writ Petition No.453 of 2002. This Court set aside the order

passed by the Industrial Court in the said Revision Application No.177

of 2001 and relegated the matter for deciding the revision afresh to the

extent of issue No.7. This Court had specifically directed the Industrial

Court to decide the said revision in the light of Judgment of this Court

in the case of Sadanand Ramesh Samsi vs. Kirloskar Cummins

Limited, reported in 2002 (4) Mh.L.J. 8041, by giving an opportunity to

both sides to make their submissions on the said issue. Further, after

hearing both sides, the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Jalgaon

by Judgment and order dated 01-03-2003, allowed the Revision

Application (ULP) No.177 of 2001, thereby the findings given by the

learned Labour Court on issue No.7 were set aside and the complaint

filed by the present petitioner before the Labour Court was dismissed.

4

WP Civil 9542-2018

Thereafter, the present petitioner filed two writ petitions be