16.10210.19 wp.doc

ISM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10210 OF 2019

BRICKS FACILITIES (SUGAR DIVISION)

….PETITIONER

PVT. LTD. THR. ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

V/s.

SHRI. GANPATI BALAKU RAKTADE AND ORS ..RESPONDENTS

AND

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10391 OF 2019

BRICKS FACILITIES (SUGAR DIVISION)

….PETITIONER

PVT. LTD. THR. ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

V/s.

SHRI. PRAKASH HINDURAO WATAVE AND ORS

..RESPONDENTS

AND

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10780 OF 2019

BRICKS FACILITIES (SUGAR DIVISION)

….PETITIONER

PVT. LTD. THR. ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

V/s.

SHRI. RAMCHANDRA KRUSHNAJI PANHALKAR

..RESPONDENTS

AND ORS

AND

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6808 OF 2022

BRICKS FACILITIES (SUGAR DIVISION)

….PETITIONER

PVT. LTD. THR. ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

V/s.

1/7

16.10210.19 wp.doc

SHRI. SADASHIV TUKARAM NAUKUDKAR

..RESPONDENTS

AND ORS

Mr. Kiran Bapat i/b M/s. Desai & Desai Associates for the Petitioner

None for Respondent

CORAM :

NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE:

JUNE 13, 2022.

P.C.:

1)

Heard. Since all these petitions involve a common issue, they are

being disposed of by a common order.

2)

Respondents-employees taken out complaint (ULP) No. 123 of

2015 before Member, Industrial Court, Kolhapur alleging that gratuity

and difference in wages are not paid. Said ULP complaint preferred by

the Respondents-employees came to be allowed vide order impugned

passed on 25/26 of March 2019. As such, these petitions.

3)

Facts necessary for for deciding all these petitions are as under:

4)

Respondent no. 46 is Cooperative Sugar Factory. Said

Respondent hired services of Respondent nos. 1 to 45 in its

employment and said Respondents were on the permanent pay role.

5)

Petitioner and Respondent no. 46 entered into an Agreement

dated 04/03/2014 whereby Petitioner agreed to run and manage sugar

2/7

16.10210.19 wp.doc

factory of Respondent no. 46 Cooperative Society. Said agreement is

termed as collaboration agreement.

6)

Claim of Respondent nos. 1 to 45 for grant of difference in wages,

amount of gratuity was duly resisted by present Petitioners so also

Respondent no. 46 by filing their reply in ULP complaint in question.

Respondent Sugar Factory denied their liability. They have also denied

status of Respondents as that of employee/worker. It is brought on

record that Petitioner and Respondent no. 46 have entered into

collaboration agreement dated 04/03/2014 based on which it is

claimed that present Petitioner has accepted the liability of the

government dues, bank and financial institution, retiral benefits,

provident funds, bonus, gratuity etc.

7)

It is further claimed that since the Petitioner is in possession of

the entire property of Respondent no. 46 Sugar factory since

01/10/2013, Petitioner becomes successor in interest of said

Respondent and legal dues, if any payable to the Respondent

employees are to be paid by the Petitioner. Present Petitioner, in

response to the claim made in the complaint, filed their written

statement at Exh. C-5. While resisting the claim in the complaint, it is

3/7

16.10210.19 wp.doc

claimed that Petitioner has stepped in the shoes of Respondent no. 46

sugar factory pursuant to collaboration agreement. According to

Petitioner, liability, if any, will be prospective and not retrospective.

Respondent no. 46 to the complaint pressed the issue of limitation.

8)

Having regard to the rival claims before the Industrial Court, the

issues were framed in relation to maintainability of the complaint,

discharge of burden by Respondents-employees as regards proving the

unfair labour practice and the reliefs claimed.

9)

Tribunal, thereafter, having regard to the recitals in the

collaboration agreement, the liability to pay statutory dues to the

employees has ruled in favour of Respondent nos. 1 to 45 thereby

declaring that Respondents to the complaint are engaged in unfair

l