Bombay High Court
Sanjay Yashwantrao Yeole (Patil) vs M/S Lokmat Media Private Limited, ... on 4 May, 2018
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
wps7525.17 etc.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.7525 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No.7526 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7527 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7528 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7529 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7530 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7531 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7532 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7533 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7534 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7535 of 2017
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
2
with
Writ Petition No. 7536 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7537 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7538 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7539 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7540 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7541 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7542 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7543 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7544 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7545 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7546 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7547 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7548 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7906 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7918 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7919 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7920 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7921 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7922 of 2017
with
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
3
Writ Petition No. 7923 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7924 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7925 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7926 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7927 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7928 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7929 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7930 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7931 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7932 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7933 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7934 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7935 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7936 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7937 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7938 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7939 of 2017
with
Writ Petition No. 7940 of 2017
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
4
1. Writ Petition No. 7525 of 2017 :
Ravindra Bhagyanarayan Thakur,
aged about 62 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of A-1104, Rachana Gokul
Apartment, Ring Road,
Mankapur, Nagpur-440 030. ..... Petitioner
Original Complainant
Versus
M/s. Lokmat Media Private Ltd.
Lokmat Bhawan, Pt. Jawaharlal
Nehru Marg, Nagpur, through
its Chairman/Managing Director
Shri Vijay Darda [earlier known as M/s.
Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
Nagpur]. ..... Respondent
Org. Respondent
*****
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the respondent.
*****
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
5
2. Writ Petition No. 7526 of 2017 :
Jiwant Kumar Sharan,
aged about 61 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of 37, Maa Renuka Vihar,
Rameshwari Ring
Road, Nagpur-440 027. ..... Petitioner
Original Complainant
Versus
M/s. Lokmat Media Private Ltd.
Lokmat Bhawan, Pt. Jawaharlal
Nehru Marg, Nagpur, through
its Chairman/Managing Director
Shri Vijay Darda [earlier known as M/s.
Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
Nagpur]. ..... Respondent
Org. Respondent
*****
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the respondent.
*****
3. Writ Petition No. 7527 of 2017 :
Vijay Krushnarao Pawar,
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
6
aged about 45 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of at Post Fetri,
Tq. & Distt. Nagpur-441 501. ..... Petitioner
Original Complainant
Versus
M/s. Lokmat Media Private Ltd.
Lokmat Bhawan, Pt. Jawaharlal
Nehru Marg, Nagpur, through
its Chairman/Managing Director
Shri Vijay Darda [earlier known as M/s.
Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
Nagpur]. ..... Respondent
Org. Respondent
*****
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the respondent.
*****
4. Writ Petition No. 7528 of 2017 :
Prakash Deorao Kanfade,
aged about 48 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of Plot No.2,
Bandu Sone Layout, Parsodi,
Nagpur. ..... Petitioner
Original Complainant
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
7
Versus
M/s. Lokmat Media Private Ltd.
Lokmat Bhawan, Pt. Jawaharlal
Nehru Marg, Nagpur, through
its Chairman/Managing Director
Shri Vijay Darda [earlier known as M/s.
Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
Nagpur]. ..... Respondent
Org. Respondent
*****
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the respondent.
*****
5. Writ Petition No. 7529 of 2017 :
Moreshwar Jangaluji Ghaiwat,
aged about 51 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of 34, Jaiwant Nagar,
Kala Maruti Mandir,
Manewada Ring Road,
Nagpur. ..... Petitioner
Original Complainant
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
8
M/s. Lokmat Media Private Ltd.
Lokmat Bhawan, Pt. Jawaharlal
Nehru Marg, Nagpur, through
its Chairman/Managing Director
Shri Vijay Darda [earlier known as M/s.
Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
Nagpur]. ..... Respondent
Org. Respondent
*****
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the respondent.
*****
6. Writ Petition No. 7530 of 2017 :
Dilip Annaji Ghaiwat,
aged about 54 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of 3266/6/E, New
Kailash Nagar,
Manewada Road,
Nagpur440 027. ..... Petitioner
Original Complainant
Versus
M/s. Lokmat Media Private Ltd.
Lokmat Bhawan, Pt. Jawaharlal
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
9
Nehru Marg, Nagpur, through
its Chairman/Managing Director
Shri Vijay Darda [earlier known as M/s.
Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
Nagpur]. ..... Respondent
Org. Respondent
*****
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the respondent.
*****
7. Writ Petition No. 7531 of 2017 :
Vyasmuni Raghubar Prajapati,
aged about 46 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of Qr. No. 114, Type-II,
Bungalow No.18, North
Telankhedi Road,
Civil Lines,
Nagpur-440 001. ..... Petitioner
Original Complainant
Versus
M/s. Lokmat Media Private Ltd.
Lokmat Bhawan, Pt. Jawaharlal
Nehru Marg, Nagpur, through
its Chairman/Managing Director
Shri Vijay Darda [earlier known as M/s.
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
10
Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
Nagpur]. ..... Respondent
Org. Respondent
*****
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the respondent.
*****
8. Writ Petition No. 7532 of 2017 :
Ramesh Parasram Pethe,
aged about 46 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of near Bhola Baisware
House, Tandapeth,
Naik Talao, Nagpur. ..... Petitioner
Original Complainant
Versus
M/s. Lokmat Media Private Ltd.
Lokmat Bhawan, Pt. Jawaharlal
Nehru Marg, Nagpur, through
its Chairman/Managing Director
Shri Vijay Darda [earlier known as M/s.
Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
Nagpur]. ..... Respondent
Org. Respondent
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
11
*****
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the respondent.
*****
9. Writ Petition No. 7533 of 2017 :
Pavin Diwakar Mendhi,
aged about 50 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of L-7/13, VHB
Colony, Raje Raghuji Nagar,
Nagpur-440 009. ..... Petitioner
Original Complainant
Versus
M/s. Lokmat Media Private Ltd.
Lokmat Bhawan, Pt. Jawaharlal
Nehru Marg, Nagpur, through
its Chairman/Managing Director
Shri Vijay Darda [earlier known as M/s.
Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
Nagpur]. ..... Respondent
Org. Respondent
*****
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the respondent.
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
12
*****
10. Writ Petition No. 7534 of 2017 :
Chandrakant Shamrao Dasarwar,
aged about 50 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of Madhukar Apartment,
Flat No.61, Trimurti Nagar,
Nagpur. ..... Petitioner
Original Complainant
Versus
M/s. Lokmat Media Private Ltd.
Lokmat Bhawan, Pt. Jawaharlal
Nehru Marg, Nagpur, through
its Chairman/Managing Director
Shri Vijay Darda [earlier known as M/s.
Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
Nagpur]. ..... Respondent
Org. Respondent
*****
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the respondent.
*****
11. Writ Petition No. 7535 of 2017 :
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
13
Chandrashekhar Kisanlal Mahule,
aged about 43 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of near Jadu Mahal,
New Kailash Nagar,
Manewada Road, Nagpur. ..... Petitioner
Original Complainant
Versus
M/s. Lokmat Media Private Ltd.
Lokmat Bhawan, Pt. Jawaharlal
Nehru Marg, Nagpur, through
its Chairman/Managing Director
Shri Vijay Darda [earlier known as M/s.
Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
Nagpur]. ..... Respondent
Org. Respondent
*****
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the respondent.
*****
12. Writ Petition No. 7536 of 2017 :
Sanjay Yashwantrao Yeole [Patil],
aged about 50 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of 95, Sita Nagar,
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
14
Wankhede Layout, Digdoh,
Hingana Road,
Nagpur-440 016. ..... Petitioner
Original Complainant
Versus
M/s. Lokmat Media Private Ltd.
Lokmat Bhawan, Pt. Jawaharlal
Nehru Marg, Nagpur, through
its Chairman/Managing Director
Shri Vijay Darda [earlier known as M/s.
Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
Nagpur]. ..... Respondent
Org. Respondent
*****
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the respondent.
*****
13. Writ Petition No. 7537 of 2017 :
Ishwar Premlal Salame,
aged about 52 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of C/o Shamrao Kumar,
near Futala Library,
Amravati Road,
Nagpur-440 033. ..... Petitioner
Original Complainant
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
15
Versus
M/s. Lokmat Media Private Ltd.
Lokmat Bhawan, Pt. Jawaharlal
Nehru Marg, Nagpur, through
its Chairman/Managing Director
Shri Vijay Darda [earlier known as M/s.
Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
Nagpur]. ..... Respondent
Org. Respondent
*****
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the respondent.
*****
14. Writ Petition No. 7538 of 2017 :
Dipak Shankarrao Labde,
aged about 46 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of 13, Sona Dharma
Apartment, Gopal Nagar,
Third Bus Stop,
Nagpur-440 022. ..... Petitioner
Original Complainant
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
16
M/s. Lokmat Media Private Ltd.
Lokmat Bhawan, Pt. Jawaharlal
Nehru Marg, Nagpur, through
its Chairman/Managing Director
Shri Vijay Darda [earlier known as M/s.
Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
Nagpur]. ..... Respondent
Org. Respondent
*****
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the respondent.
*****
15. Writ Petition No. 7539 of 2017 :
Deepak Govind Rangari,
aged about 49 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of C/o Narendra Dhanvij,
76, Chandramani Nagar,
Jaibhim Housing Society,
Nagpur-27. ..... Petitioner
Original Complainant
Versus
M/s. Lokmat Media Private Ltd.
Lokmat Bhawan, Pt. Jawaharlal
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
17
Nehru Marg, Nagpur, through
its Chairman/Managing Director
Shri Vijay Darda [earlier known as M/s.
Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
Nagpur]. ..... Respondent
Org. Respondent
*****
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the respondent.
*****
16. Writ Petition No. 7540 of 2017 :
Manohar Maniklal Gour,
aged about 56 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of near Manke Guruji,
Lashkari Bag, Kamal Chowk,
Nagpur. ..... Petitioner
Original Complainant
Versus
M/s. Lokmat Media Private Ltd.
Lokmat Bhawan, Pt. Jawaharlal
Nehru Marg, Nagpur, through
its Chairman/Managing Director
Shri Vijay Darda [earlier known as M/s.
Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
Nagpur]. ..... Respondent
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
18
Org. Respondent
*****
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the respondent.
*****
17. Writ Petition No. 7541 of 2017 :
Ramesh Baburao Mondhe,
aged about 56 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of C/o N. S. Pawday,
Plot No.6,
Bodkhe Layout,
Sachidanand Nagar,
Nagpur-440 027. ..... Petitioner
Original Complainant
Versus
M/s. Lokmat Media Private Ltd.
Lokmat Bhawan, Pt. Jawaharlal
Nehru Marg, Nagpur, through
its Chairman/Managing Director
Shri Vijay Darda [earlier known as M/s.
Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
Nagpur]. ..... Respondent
Org. Respondent
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
19
*****
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the respondent.
*****
18. Writ Petition No. 7542 of 2017 :
Sunil Wasant Taley,
aged about 57 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of 113, New Subhedar
Layout, Nagpur-24. ..... Petitioner
Original Complainant
Versus
M/s. Lokmat Media Private Ltd.
Lokmat Bhawan, Pt. Jawaharlal
Nehru Marg, Nagpur, through
its Chairman/Managing Director
Shri Vijay Darda [earlier known as M/s.
Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
Nagpur]. ..... Respondent
Org. Respondent
*****
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the respondent.
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
20
*****
19. Writ Petition No. 7543 of 2017 :
Kashiram Ranjit Rajput,
aged about 56 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of Ward No.11, Plot
No.1058, Rambag,
Nagpur. ..... Petitioner
Original Complainant
Versus
M/s. Lokmat Media Private Ltd.
Lokmat Bhawan, Pt. Jawaharlal
Nehru Marg, Nagpur, through
its Chairman/Managing Director
Shri Vijay Darda [earlier known as M/s.
Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
Nagpur]. ..... Respondent
Org. Respondent
*****
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the respondent.
*****
20. Writ Petition No. 7544 of 2017 :
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
21
Niranjan Prabhakar Markandeywar,
aged about 50 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of 103, Bajiprabhu Nagar,
behind Ramnagar,
Nagpur-33. ..... Petitioner
Original Complainant
Versus
M/s. Lokmat Media Private Ltd.
Lokmat Bhawan, Pt. Jawaharlal
Nehru Marg, Nagpur, through
its Chairman/Managing Director
Shri Vijay Darda [earlier known as M/s.
Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
Nagpur]. ..... Respondent
Org. Respondent
*****
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the respondent.
*****
21. Writ Petition No. 7545 of 2017 :
Naktu Kashiram Fulzele,
aged about 59 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of Hiwri Nagar,
Zopadpatti, Jai Bhim Chowk,
near Nag River Bridge,
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
22
KDK College Road, Nagpur. ..... Petitioner
Original Complainant
Versus
M/s. Lokmat Media Private Ltd.
Lokmat Bhawan, Pt. Jawaharlal
Nehru Marg, Nagpur, through
its Chairman/Managing Director
Shri Vijay Darda [earlier known as M/s.
Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
Nagpur]. ..... Respondent
Org. Respondent
*****
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the respondent.
*****
22. Writ Petition No. 7546 of 2017 :
Nilkanth Krushnaji Dongre,
aged about 53 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of Ward No.62,
Surendragad, Seminary Hills,
near TV Center,
Nagpur. ..... Petitioner
Original Complainant
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
23
Versus
M/s. Lokmat Media Private Ltd.
Lokmat Bhawan, Pt. Jawaharlal
Nehru Marg, Nagpur, through
its Chairman/Managing Director
Shri Vijay Darda [earlier known as M/s.
Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
Nagpur]. ..... Respondent
Org. Respondent
*****
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the respondent.
*****
23. Writ Petition No. 7547 of 2017 :
Bhaiyalal Brijmohan Rajput,
aged about 43 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of 29, Ajni Chowk,
Nagpur-440 015. ..... Petitioner
Original Complainant
Versus
M/s. Lokmat Media Private Ltd.
Lokmat Bhawan, Pt. Jawaharlal
Nehru Marg, Nagpur, through
its Chairman/Managing Director
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
24
Shri Vijay Darda [earlier known as M/s.
Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
Nagpur]. ..... Respondent
Org. Respondent
*****
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the respondent.
*****
24. Writ Petition No. 7548 of 2017 :
Pundalik Bhaurao Gaikwad,
aged about 61 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident of 49, Sai Nagar,
Umrer Road, Nagpur-9. ..... Petitioner
Original Complainant
Versus
M/s. Lokmat Media Private Ltd.
Lokmat Bhawan, Pt. Jawaharlal
Nehru Marg, Nagpur, through
its Chairman/Managing Director
Shri Vijay Darda [earlier known as M/s.
Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
Nagpur]. ..... Respondent
Org. Respondent
*****
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
25
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the respondent.
*****
25. Writ Petition No. 7906 of 2017 :
M/s. Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.,
Lokmat Bhavan, Pandit
Jawaharlal Marg,
Nagpur, through its Sr. Manager -
Legal, Syed Arshad Ali son of
Mustaq Ali, aged about 39 years,
occupation - service [earlier known
as M/s. Lokmat Newspaper Pvt.
Ltd., Nagpur]. ..... Petitioner
Original Respondent
Versus
Vijay son of Krushnarao Pawar,
aged about 45 years,
occupation - service,
resident of Fetri,
Tq. & Distt. Nagpur. ..... Respondent
Org. Complainant
*****
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the petitioner.
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the respondent.
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
26
*****
26. Writ Petition No. 7918 of 2017 :
M/s. Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.,
Lokmat Bhavan, Pandit
Jawaharlal Marg,
Nagpur, through its Sr. Manager -
Legal, Syed Arshad Ali son of
Mustaq Ali, aged about 39 years,
occupation - service [earlier known
as M/s. Lokmat Newspaper Pvt.
Ltd., Nagpur]. ..... Petitioner
Original Respondent
Versus
Bhaiyalal son of Brijmohan
Rajput,
aged about 43 years,
resident of 29,
Ajni Chowk,
Nagpur-15. ..... Respondent
Org. Complainant
*****
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the petitioner.
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the respondent.
*****
27. Writ Petition No. 7919 of 2017 :
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
27
M/s. Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.,
Lokmat Bhavan, Pandit
Jawaharlal Marg,
Nagpur, through its Sr. Manager -
Legal, Syed Arshad Ali son of
Mustaq Ali, aged about 39 years,
occupation - service [earlier known
as M/s. Lokmat Newspaper Pvt.
Ltd., Nagpur]. ..... Petitioner
Original Respondent
Versus
Chandrashekhar son of Kisanlal
Mahule,
aged about 43 years,
resident of 2, near Jadu
Mahal, New Kailash Nagar,
Manewada Road, Nagpur. ..... Respondent
Org. Complainant
*****
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the petitioner.
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the respondent.
*****
28. Writ Petition No. 7920 of 2017 :
M/s. Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.,
Lokmat Bhavan, Pandit
Jawaharlal Marg,
Nagpur, through its Sr. Manager -
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
28
Legal, Syed Arshad Ali son of
Mustaq Ali, aged about 39 years,
occupation - service [earlier known
as M/s. Lokmat Newspaper Pvt.
Ltd., Nagpur]. ..... Petitioner
Original Respondent
Versus
Deepak Govind Rangari,
aged about 49 years,
resident of C/o Narendra
Dhanvij, 76, Chandramani
Nagar, Jaibhim Housing
Society, Nagpur-27. ..... Respondent
Org. Complainant
*****
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the petitioner.
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the respondent.
*****
29. Writ Petition No. 7921 of 2017 :
M/s. Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.,
Lokmat Bhavan, Pandit
Jawaharlal Marg,
Nagpur, through its Sr. Manager -
Legal, Syed Arshad Ali son of
Mustaq Ali, aged about 39 years,
occupation - service [earlier known
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
29
as M/s. Lokmat Newspaper Pvt.
Ltd., Nagpur]. ..... Petitioner
Original Respondent
Versus
Sanjay Yashwantrao Yeole [Patil],
aged about 50 years,
resident of 95, Sita Nagar,
Wankhede Layout, Digdoh,
Hingana Road, Nagpur-16. ..... Respondent
Org. Complainant
*****
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the petitioner.
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the respondent.
*****
30. Writ Petition No. 7922 of 2017 :
M/s. Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.,
Lokmat Bhavan, Pandit
Jawaharlal Marg,
Nagpur, through its Sr. Manager -
Legal, Syed Arshad Ali son of
Mustaq Ali, aged about 39 years,
occupation - service [earlier known
as M/s. Lokmat Newspaper Pvt.
Ltd., Nagpur]. ..... Petitioner
Original Respondent
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
30
Versus
Naktu son of Kahirma Fulzele,
aged about 59 years,
resident of Hiwri Nagar,
Zopadpati, Jai Bhim Chowk,
near Nag River Bridge,
KDK College Road, Nagpur. ..... Respondent
Org. Complainant
*****
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the petitioner.
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the respondent.
*****
31. Writ Petition No. 7923 of 2017 :
M/s. Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.,
Lokmat Bhavan, Pandit
Jawaharlal Marg,
Nagpur, through its Sr. Manager -
Legal, Syed Arshad Ali son of
Mustaq Ali, aged about 39 years,
occupation - service [earlier known
as M/s. Lokmat Newspaper Pvt.
Ltd., Nagpur]. ..... Petitioner
Original Respondent
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
31
Ramesh son of Parasram Pethe,
aged about 46 years,
resident of near Bhola Baisware
House, Tandapeth, Naik Talao,
Nagpur. ..... Respondent
Org. Complainant
*****
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the petitioner.
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the respondent.
*****
32. Writ Petition No. 7924 of 2017 :
M/s. Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.,
Lokmat Bhavan, Pandit
Jawaharlal Marg,
Nagpur, through its Sr. Manager -
Legal, Syed Arshad Ali son of
Mustaq Ali, aged about 39 years,
occupation - service [earlier known
as M/s. Lokmat Newspaper Pvt.
Ltd., Nagpur]. ..... Petitioner
Original Respondent
Versus
Prakash son of Deorao Kanfade,
aged about 48 years,
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
32
resident of Plot No.2, Bandu Sone
Layout, Parsodi, Nagpur. ..... Respondent
Org. Complainant
*****
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the petitioner.
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the respondent.
*****
33. Writ Petition No. 7925 of 2017 :
M/s. Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.,
Lokmat Bhavan, Pandit
Jawaharlal Marg,
Nagpur, through its Sr. Manager -
Legal, Syed Arshad Ali son of
Mustaq Ali, aged about 39 years,
occupation - service [earlier known
as M/s. Lokmat Newspaper Pvt.
Ltd., Nagpur]. ..... Petitioner
Original Respondent
Versus
Manohar son of Maniklal Gour,
aged about 56 years,
resident of near Manke Guruji,
Lashkari Bag, Kamal Chowk,
Nagpur. ..... Respondent
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:30 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
33
Org. Complainant
*****
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the petitioner.
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the respondent.
*****
34. Writ Petition No. 7926 of 2017 :
M/s. Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.,
Lokmat Bhavan, Pandit
Jawaharlal Marg,
Nagpur, through its Sr. Manager -
Legal, Syed Arshad Ali son of
Mustaq Ali, aged about 39 years,
occupation - service [earlier known
as M/s. Lokmat Newspaper Pvt.
Ltd., Nagpur]. ..... Petitioner
Original Respondent
Versus
Nilkanth son of Krushnaji Dongre,
aged about 53 years,
resident of Ward No.62,
Surendragad, Seminary Hills,
near T.V. Center, Nagpur. ..... Respondent
Org. Complainant
*****
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
34
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the petitioner.
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the respondent.
*****
35. Writ Petition No. 7927 of 2017 :
M/s. Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.,
Lokmat Bhavan, Pandit
Jawaharlal Marg,
Nagpur, through its Sr. Manager -
Legal, Syed Arshad Ali son of
Mustaq Ali, aged about 39 years,
occupation - service [earlier known
as M/s. Lokmat Newspaper Pvt.
Ltd., Nagpur]. ..... Petitioner
Original Respondent
Versus
Kashiram son of Ranji Rajput,
aged about 56 years,
resident of Ward No.11, Plot
No.1058, Rambag,
Nagpur-441 501. ..... Respondent
Org. Complainant
*****
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the petitioner.
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the respondent.
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
35
*****
36. Writ Petition No. 7928 of 2017 :
M/s. Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.,
Lokmat Bhavan, Pandit
Jawaharlal Marg,
Nagpur, through its Sr. Manager -
Legal, Syed Arshad Ali son of
Mustaq Ali, aged about 39 years,
occupation - service [earlier known
as M/s. Lokmat Newspaper Pvt.
Ltd., Nagpur]. ..... Petitioner
Original Respondent
Versus
Pravin Diwakar Mendhi,
aged about 50 years,
resident of L-7/13, VHB
Colony, Raje Raghuji Nagar,
Nagpur440 009. ..... Respondent
Org. Complainant
*****
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the petitioner.
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the respondent.
*****
37. Writ Petition No. 7929 of 2017 :
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
36
M/s. Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.,
Lokmat Bhavan, Pandit
Jawaharlal Marg,
Nagpur, through its Sr. Manager -
Legal, Syed Arshad Ali son of
Mustaq Ali, aged about 39 years,
occupation - service [earlier known
as M/s. Lokmat Newspaper Pvt.
Ltd., Nagpur]. ..... Petitioner
Original Respondent
Versus
Pundalik son of Bhaurao Gaikwad,
aged about 61 years,
resident of 49, Sai Nagar,
Umrer Road, Nagpur-9. ..... Respondent
Org. Complainant
*****
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the petitioner.
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the respondent.
*****
38. Writ Petition No. 7930 of 2017 :
M/s. Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.,
Lokmat Bhavan, Pandit
Jawaharlal Marg,
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
37
Nagpur, through its Sr. Manager -
Legal, Syed Arshad Ali son of
Mustaq Ali, aged about 39 years,
occupation - service [earlier known
as M/s. Lokmat Newspaper Pvt.
Ltd., Nagpur]. ..... Petitioner
Original Respondent
Versus
Ramesh son of Baburao Mondhe,
aged about 56 years,
resident of N. S. Pawday,
Plot No.6, Bodkhe Layout,
Sachidanand Nagar,
Nagpur-27. ..... Respondent
Org. Complainant
*****
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the petitioner.
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the respondent.
*****
39. Writ Petition No. 7931 of 2017 :
M/s. Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.,
Lokmat Bhavan, Pandit
Jawaharlal Marg,
Nagpur, through its Sr. Manager -
Legal, Syed Arshad Ali son of
Mustaq Ali, aged about 39 years,
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
38
occupation - service [earlier known
as M/s. Lokmat Newspaper Pvt.
Ltd., Nagpur]. ..... Petitioner
Original Respondent
Versus
Jiwant son of Kumar Sharan,
aged about 61 years,
resident of 37, Maa Renuka Vihar,
Rameshwari Ring Road,
Nagpur-27. ..... Respondent
Org. Complainant
*****
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the petitioner.
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the respondent.
*****
40. Writ Petition No. 7932 of 2017 :
M/s. Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.,
Lokmat Bhavan, Pandit
Jawaharlal Marg,
Nagpur, through its Sr. Manager -
Legal, Syed Arshad Ali son of
Mustaq Ali, aged about 39 years,
occupation - service [earlier known
as M/s. Lokmat Newspaper Pvt.
Ltd., Nagpur]. ..... Petitioner
Original Respondent
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
39
Versus
Chandrakant son of Shamrao Dasarwar,
aged about 50 years,
resident of Madhukar Apartment,
Flat No.61, Trimurti Nagar,
Nagpur. ..... Respondent
Org. Complainant
*****
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the petitioner.
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the respondent.
*****
41. Writ Petition No. 7933 of 2017 :
M/s. Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.,
Lokmat Bhavan, Pandit
Jawaharlal Marg,
Nagpur, through its Sr. Manager -
Legal, Syed Arshad Ali son of
Mustaq Ali, aged about 39 years,
occupation - service [earlier known
as M/s. Lokmat Newspaper Pvt.
Ltd., Nagpur]. ..... Petitioner
Original Respondent
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
40
Niranjan son of Prabhakar Markandeywar,
aged about 50 years,
resident of 8/3,
Priya Darshani Apartment,
near RTO, Civil Lines,
Nagpur-440 001. ..... Respondent
Org. Complainant
*****
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the petitioner.
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the respondent.
*****
42. Writ Petition No. 7934 of 2017 :
M/s. Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.,
Lokmat Bhavan, Pandit
Jawaharlal Marg,
Nagpur, through its Sr. Manager -
Legal, Syed Arshad Ali son of
Mustaq Ali, aged about 39 years,
occupation - service [earlier known
as M/s. Lokmat Newspaper Pvt.
Ltd., Nagpur]. ..... Petitioner
Original Respondent
Versus
Ishwar son of Premlal Salame,
aged about 52 years,
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
41
resident of C/o Shamrao Kumar,
near Futala Library, Amravati
Road, Nagpur-33. ..... Respondent
Org. Complainant
*****
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the petitioner.
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the respondent.
*****
43. Writ Petition No. 7935 of 2017 :
M/s. Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.,
Lokmat Bhavan, Pandit
Jawaharlal Marg,
Nagpur, through its Sr. Manager -
Legal, Syed Arshad Ali son of
Mustaq Ali, aged about 39 years,
occupation - service [earlier known
as M/s. Lokmat Newspaper Pvt.
Ltd., Nagpur]. ..... Petitioner
Original Respondent
Versus
Sunil son of Wasant Taley,
aged about 57 years,
resident of 113, New Subhedar
Layout, Nagpur-24. ..... Respondent
Org. Complainant
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
42
*****
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the petitioner.
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the respondent.
*****
44. Writ Petition No. 7936 of 2017 :
M/s. Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.,
Lokmat Bhavan, Pandit
Jawaharlal Marg,
Nagpur, through its Sr. Manager -
Legal, Syed Arshad Ali son of
Mustaq Ali, aged about 39 years,
occupation - service [earlier known
as M/s. Lokmat Newspaper Pvt.
Ltd., Nagpur]. ..... Petitioner
Original Respondent
Versus
Deepak son of Shankarrao Labde,
aged about 46 years,
resident of 13, Sona Dharma
Apartment, Gopal Nagar,
Third Bus Stop,
Nagpur-22. ..... Respondent
Org. Complainant
*****
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the petitioner.
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
43
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the respondent.
*****
45. Writ Petition No. 7937 of 2017 :
M/s. Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.,
Lokmat Bhavan, Pandit
Jawaharlal Marg,
Nagpur, through its Sr. Manager -
Legal, Syed Arshad Ali son of
Mustaq Ali, aged about 39 years,
occupation - service [earlier known
as M/s. Lokmat Newspaper Pvt.
Ltd., Nagpur]. ..... Petitioner
Original Respondent
Versus
Vyasmuni son of Raghubar Prajapti,
aged about 46 years,
resident of Qr. No. 114, Type-II,
Bungalow No.18, North Telankhedi
Road, Civil Lines,
Nagpur-1. ..... Respondent
Org. Complainant
*****
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the petitioner.
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the respondent.
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
44
*****
46. Writ Petition No. 7938 of 2017 :
M/s. Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.,
Lokmat Bhavan, Pandit
Jawaharlal Marg,
Nagpur, through its Sr. Manager -
Legal, Syed Arshad Ali son of
Mustaq Ali, aged about 39 years,
occupation - service [earlier known
as M/s. Lokmat Newspaper Pvt.
Ltd., Nagpur]. ..... Petitioner
Original Respondent
Versus
Ravindra son of Bhagyanarayan
Thakur,
aged about 62 years,
resident of A-1104, Rachana
Gokul Apartment, Ring Road,
Nagpur-30. ..... Respondent
Org. Complainant
*****
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the petitioner.
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the respondent.
*****
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
45
47. Writ Petition No. 7939 of 2017 :
M/s. Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.,
Lokmat Bhavan, Pandit
Jawaharlal Marg,
Nagpur, through its Sr. Manager -
Legal, Syed Arshad Ali son of
Mustaq Ali, aged about 39 years,
occupation - service [earlier known
as M/s. Lokmat Newspaper Pvt.
Ltd., Nagpur]. ..... Petitioner
Original Respondent
Versus
Dilip son of Annaji Ghaiwat,
aged about 54 years,
resident of 3266/6/E, New Kailash
Nagar, Manewada Road,
Nagpur-27. ..... Respondent
Org. Complainant
*****
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the petitioner.
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the respondent.
*****
48. Writ Petition No. 7940 of 2017 :
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
46
M/s. Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.,
Lokmat Bhavan, Pandit
Jawaharlal Marg,
Nagpur, through its Sr. Manager -
Legal, Syed Arshad Ali son of
Mustaq Ali, aged about 39 years,
occupation - service [earlier known
as M/s. Lokmat Newspaper Pvt.
Ltd., Nagpur]. ..... Petitioner
Original Respondent
Versus
Moreshwar son of Jangaluji Ghaiwat,
aged about 51 years,
resident of 34, Jaiwant Nagar,
Kala Maruti Mandir,
Manewada Ring Road,
Nagpur. ..... Respondent
Org. Complainant
*****
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Adv. with Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., for
the petitioner.
Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv., for the respondent.
*****
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 :::
wps7525.17 etc.
47
Date on which
arguments were
concluded : 28th March, 2018
Date on which the
the judgment is
pronounced : 04th May, 2018
JUDGMENT:
01. Since the common judgment of the Industrial Court dated 7 th November, 2017 partly allowing the applications moved by the employees seeking interim relief by way of reinstatement is under challenge in all these Writ Petitions, they are being decided together by this common judgment.
02. Rule. Heard finally with consent of counsel for the parties.
03. The facts, in brief, are that the employees in question are employed with M/s. Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Various industrial disputes with regard to their service conditions were pending with the Industrial Court. During pendency of those proceedings, on 13 th and 14th November, 2013, certain incidents took place allegedly involving certain employees which compelled the employer to issue show cause ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 ::: wps7525.17 etc. 48 to the said employees as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against them. On the ground that the concerned employees were guilty of gross misconduct, orders of dismissal dated 21 st November, 2013 came to be issued. As this dismissal, according to the employees, was during pendency of the Reference proceedings, it was necessary for the employer to have obtained necessary permission of the Industrial Tribunal where the proceedings were pending. Accordingly, the employer filed an application under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, "the Act of 1947"] on 21st November, 2013 seeking approval to the order of dismissal. A reply was filed on behalf of the concerned employees opposing the prayer as made. Those proceedings under Section 33 of the Act of 1947 came to be decided on 16th August, 2016 and the said adjudication was the subject-matter of challenge in various Writ Petitions before this Court. This Court by order dated 10th January, 2017 had remanded the proceedings and directed the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the same afresh along with other pending reference proceedings. Thereafter, the employer examined about 118 witnesses to establish its case. During pendency of those proceedings, the employer moved an application seeking withdrawal of the application seeking approval to dismiss the employees. According to the employer, the provisions ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 ::: wps7525.17 etc. 49 of Section 33 of the Act of 1947 were not applicable and hence the prayer for withdrawing the said applications came to be made. The Industrial Tribunal allowed those applications subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to each employee.
04. Thereafter, the employees filed Complaint under Section 33A of the Act of 1947 stating therein that the order of dismissal dated 21st November, 2013 having been passed without seeking necessary approval of the Industrial Tribunal, there was breach of provisions of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947. Along with those Complaints, applications for grant of interim relief came to be filed. It was prayed that by way of interim relief, the employees be reinstated on their former posts or in the alternate the employer be directed to pay full back wages to them. These applications were opposed by the employer and by the impugned order, the learned Judge of the Industrial Tribunal directed the employer to permit the employees to join duties on their former posts or to pay seventy-five per cent wages which the said employees were receiving at the time of their dismissal.
05. This order passed by the Industrial Tribunal is under challenge by the employer on the premise that the impugned order is ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 ::: wps7525.17 etc. 50 contrary to law and has been passed in exercise of jurisdiction not vested with the Industrial Tribunal. The concerned employees have also challenged the same order with a prayer that the employees were entitled for full wages instead of seventy-five per cent wages as granted.
06. On behalf of the employer, Shri M. G. Bhangde, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the Industrial Court committed an error of jurisdiction by granting interim relief in proceedings under Section 33A of the Act of 1947. It was submitted that the complaints as filed had to be tried as Reference proceedings under Section 10 of the Act of 1947 and in such proceedings, there was no power with the Industrial Tribunal to grant any interim relief. He submitted that though it was true that applications seeking approval to the act of dismissal had been filed earlier, those applications had been withdrawn. Steps had been taken by the employer to revive those proceedings by making a prayer for restoration. Even if it was assumed that the action of dismissal was not preceded by any permission as contemplated by Section 33 of the Act of1947, alleged contravention of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947 would not result in automatic reinstatement of the concerned employee. He submitted ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 ::: wps7525.17 etc. 51 that the reliance placed on the decision in The Management Hotel Imperial, New Delhi & others Vs. Hotel Workers' Union [AIR 1959 SC 1342] by the Industrial Tribunal for granting interim relief was misplaced in view of the fact that by the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its subsequent decisions, it was clear that no such relief as prayed for could have been granted in proceedings under Section 33A of the Act of1947. In this regard, he submitted that in Punjab National Bank Ltd. Vs. All India Punjab National Bank Employees' Federation & another [AIR 1960 SC 160], it was held in clear terms that in proceedings under Section 33A of the Act of 1947 even if contravention of the provisions of Section 33 is proved, the same would not result in an order of reinstatement in favour of the employee. This decision was subsequently followed in The Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co., Ltd. Vs. Shri Rameshwar Dayal & another [AIR 1961 SC 689] wherein it was held that the employee would not succeed in obtaining an order of reinstatement merely by proving contravention of Section 33 of the Act of 1947 by the employer. According to him, this law was explained and followed by the Division Bench of this Court in MRF Ltd., Goa Vs. Goa MRF Employees Union, Goa, & another [2003 (4) LLN 1182] wherein it was held that in such proceedings, the Tribunal could exercise powers ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 ::: wps7525.17 etc. 52 which were incidental to the main proceedings and which arose from the terms of the Reference. The learned Senior Counsel then referred to the decision in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & another Vs. Satya Prakash [ (2013) 9 SCC 232] wherein it was held that in proceedings under Section 33A of the Act of 1947, the employee would have to prove his case on merits. It is only if the misconduct is not proved in these proceedings would the question of reinstatement arise. It was, thus, submitted that the aforesaid law having been referred to and applied by the subsequent decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also by the Division Bench of this Court, the same were binding on this Court. He referred to the judgment in Amruta Babaji Mozar Vs. Kondabai Babaji Mozar & another [1994 Mh.L.J. 1663] to urge that when the High Court considers a decision of the Supreme Court and puts its own gloss thereon, that gloss was binding on all the Courts in the State until it was outweighed by a later decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or of the High Court. Reference was also made to the decision in Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. Vs. Music Brodcast Pvt. Ltd. [(2012) 5 SCC 488]. Without prejudice, it was submitted by relying upon the decision in The Works Manager, Bihar State Superphosphate Factory, Sindri Vs. SRI C. P. Singh & others, etc. [(1973) 3 SCC ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 ::: wps7525.17 etc. 53 858] that if any amounts are directed to be paid to the employees, same should be subject to interests of the employer being protected and calling upon the employees to furnish security in that regard. It was, thus, submitted that considering the aforesaid law, there was no question of any interim reinstatement being granted in proceedings under Section 33A of the Act of 1947, especially in view of the law that breach of provisions of Section 33 would not result in automatic reinstatement of the employees. It was, thus, submitted that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.
07. Shri S. D. Thakur, learned counsel for the employees, on the other hand, while supporting the grant of interim relief to the employees, submitted that the employer should have been directed to pay full back wages instead of the direction to pay seventy-five per cent back wages. He submitted that the Industrial Tribunal rightly placed reliance on the decision in the case of Hotel Imperial [supra] as said decision was holding the field. He submitted that the employer having sought approval of the Industrial Tribunal for dismissing the employees from service and thereafter having withdrawn such applications seeking approval, it resulted in contravention of the provisions of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947. Such contravention ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 ::: wps7525.17 etc. 54 has been made punitive and the consequence thereof would result in an order of reinstatement in favour of the employee. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd., Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma & others [ (2002) 2 SCC 244], it was urged that when no application seeking approval under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947 is made or such application having been made is withdrawn, it would be a clear case of contravention of the proviso to Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947. In the face of such breach by the employer, it could not be said that the Industrial Tribunal was powerless to order reinstatement by way of interim relief. It was then submitted that the provisions of Section 10 of the Act of 1947 and requirements thereof could not be imported in proceedings under Section 33A of the Act of 1947. Such interpretation would defeat the rights of the employees and the protection intended to be conferred by Section 33 (2) (b) would become illusory. The employee would have to remain out of service for an indefinite period which would be against the intention of the Legislature. The learned counsel then submitted that the decisions sought to be relied by the learned Senior Counsel for the employer were clearly distinguishable and were not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. The view taken by the Division Bench in MRF Ltd. Goa [supra] was, in fact, ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 ::: wps7525.17 etc. 55 referred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to a Larger Bench as per the order passed in Goa MRF Employees Union Vs. MRF Ltd. [(2010) 15 SCC 432]. Reference was also made to the decision in Sarva Shramik Sanghatana (KV), Mumbai Vs. State of Maharashtra & others [ (2008) 1 SCC 494] on the effect of withdrawing the applications seeking approval, Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & another Vs. State of Maharashtra & another [ (2005) 2 SCC 673] on the effect of binding precedent as well as the decisions in Western India Automobile Association Vs. The Industrial Tribunal, Bombay & others [AIR 1949 Federal Court 111] and Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat Vs. Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. & another [ (1979) 3 SCC 762]. It was, thus, submitted that besides maintaining the direction to reinstate the employees, a direction to pay hundred per cent wages deserves to be issued.
08. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and I have given due consideration to the respective submissions.
09. The factual aspects of the matters indicate that during pendency of various disputes before the Industrial Tribunal, the services of about twenty-four employees came to be dismissed on 21 st ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 ::: wps7525.17 etc. 56 November, 2013 without holding any enquiry with regard to the incidents that occurred on 13th and 14th November, 2013. The employer immediately moved applications under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947 seeking approval to its action of dismissal. In those proceedings, the employer examined about 118 witnesses, but thereafter the employer withdrew all the applications seeking approval. It is on this premise that in absence of any approval to the action of dismissal from service which resulted in contravention of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947, the employees filed Complaints under Section 33A read with Rule 64 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957. In those proceedings, applications for interim relief seeking reinstatement/full wages came to be filed. The impugned orders have been passed on those applications for interim relief.
10. The question, therefore, that is required to be considered is whether in the present facts, the employees are entitled for grant of interim relief in proceedings under Section 33A of the Act of 1947. In Hotel Imperial [supra], the question considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was with regard to grant of wages to the employees who were suspended pending permission being sought under Section ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 ::: wps7525.17 etc. 57 33 of the Act of 1947 for their dismissal and whether the Tribunal could grant interim relief without making an interim award. It was held that the undisputed common law right of the master to dismiss his servant for proper cause has been subjected by provisions of Section 33 of the Act of 1947 and therefore, if the Industrial Tribunal grants permission, the suspension would come to an end and there would be no obligation to pay wages after the date of suspension. On the other hand, if the permission was refused, the suspension would be wrong and the workman would be entitled to all wages from the date of suspension. On that premise, it was held that the Tribunal could grant such interim relief. The interim relief would be granted under the powers conferred on the Tribunal under Section 10 (4) of the Act of 1947 with respect to matters incidental to the points of dispute for adjudication.
11. The next decision in point of time is the decision in Punjab National Bank Ltd. [supra] where it was held that in proceedings under Section 33A, the employee would not succeed in obtaining an order of reinstatement merely by proving contravention of Section 33 by the employer. It was further held that even if contravention of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act of 1947 is proved against the employer, it is open for the employer to justify the dismissal on merits. ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 :::
wps7525.17 etc. 58 That would be a part of the dispute which the Tribunal has to consider as the complaint made by the employee is treated as an industrial dispute and all the relevant aspects of the said dispute fall to be considered under Section 33A of the Act of 1947. The argument that the enquiry under Section 33A is confined only to the determination of the question as to whether alleged contravention by the employer of the provisions of Section 33 has been proved or not was turned down in clear terms.
12. The decision in Hotel Imperial [supra] was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its subsequent judgment in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Company Ltd. [supra]. It was held that in a complaint under Section 33A based on dismissal against the provisions of Section 33 of the Act of 1947, the final order which the Tribunal can pass in favour of the employee would be for reinstatement. However, that final order would be passed only if the employer fails to justify the dismissal before the Tribunal either by showing that a proper domestic enquiry was held which established the misconduct or in case no domestic enquiry was held by producing evidence before the Tribunal to justify the dismissal. In para 7 of its decision, it has been held as under:-
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 :::
wps7525.17 etc. 59 "7. ...........................................................................
............Therefore, when a tribunal is considering a complaint under S.33-A and it has finally to decide whether an employee should be reinstated or not, it is not open to the tribunal to order reinstatement as an interim relief, for that would be giving the workman the very relief which he could get only if on a trial of the complaint the employer failed to justify the order of dismissal. The interim relief ordered in this case was that the workman should be permitted to work : in other words he was ordered to be reinstated; in the alternative it was ordered that if the management did not take him back they should pay him his full wages. We are of opinion that such an order cannot be passed in law as an interim relief, for that would amount to giving the respondent at the outset the relief to which he would be entitled only if the employer failed in the proceedings under S. 33-A. As was pointed out in Hotel Imperial's case, A I R 1959 S C 1342 ordinarily, interim relief should not be the whole relief that the workmen would get if they succeeded finally. The order therefore of the tribunal in this case allowing reinstatement as an interim relief or in lieu thereof payment of full wages is manifestly erroneous and must therefore be set aside. ...."
13. Thus, from these decisions, it can be seen that though in Hotel Imperial [supra], it was held that interim relief where it was admissible could be granted as a matter incidental to the main question referred to the Tribunal without there being such reference in express terms, in the subsequent decision in Punjab National Bank Ltd . [supra] which was followed in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. [supra], it has been held in clear terms that contravention of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act of 1947 by the employer would not enable the ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 ::: wps7525.17 etc. 60 employee to succeed in obtaining an order of reinstatement in view of the fact that even after such contravention is proved, it is open for the employer to justify impugned dismissal on merits. Incidentally, in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. [supra], which was authored by K. N. Wanchoo, J. who had also authored the decision in Hotel Imperial [supra], it has been observed in clear terms that grant of relief of reinstatement by way of interim relief while considering a complaint under Section 33A of the Act of 1947 would amount to giving the employee the very relief which he could get only if on a trial of the complaint, the employer failed to justify the order of dismissal. Ratio of the decision in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. [supra] is explicitly clear giving no room of doubt on the question as regards entitlement to such nature of interim relief in the form of reinstatement during pendency of complaint under Section 33A of the Act of 1947.
14. In Jaipur Zilla Sahkari Bhoomivikas Bank Ltd . [supra] on which heavy reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the employees, the questions referred to the Constitution Bench were that if approval was not granted under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947, whether the order of dismissal would become ineffective from the date ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 ::: wps7525.17 etc. 61 it was passed or the date of non-approval of the order of dismissal. Secondly, whether failure to make an application under Section 33 (2)
(b) would not render the order of dismissal inoperative. It has been held in clear terms that when no application seeking approval is made or the one made is withdrawn, it would be a clear case of contravention of the proviso to Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947. The order of discharge or dismissal does not become inoperative or invalid unless set aside under Section 33A of the Act of 1947. This decision is, therefore, an authority for the proposition that failure to make an application seeking approval or withdrawing an application made earlier would be a clear case of contravention of the proviso to Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947. It has not been held by the Constitution Bench that on the application for approval being withdrawn, the same would result in a situation that the employee is entitled to the relief of reinstatement forthwith. The ratio of this decision, therefore, cannot be applied to the case in hand so as to justify the grant of reinstatement by way of interim relief pending the complaint under Section 33A of the Act of 1947.
15. At this stage, reference is required to be made to the decision in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & another ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 ::: wps7525.17 etc. 62 [supra]. In that case, after relying upon the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Jaipur Zilla Sahkari Bhoomivikas Bank Ltd . [supra], the Tribunal held that as there was non-compliance with the provisions of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947, the order of termination had become inoperative. This order was maintained by the High Court and the employer approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Referring to the judgment of the Constitution Bench, it was observed that in paragraph 14 thereof, the Constitution Bench had observed that if a workman is aggrieved by the grant of approval to the order of dismissal, the remedy is to file a complaint under Section 33A of the Act of 1947. In that complaint, the employee would succeed only if he established that the misconduct was not proved and not otherwise. The said remedy, it was observed, is independent of the penal consequences which the employer would have to face under Section 31 (1) of the Act of 1947 if so prosecuted. The decisions in Punjab National Bank Ltd. [supra] and Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. [supra] make the position amply clear that even after such contravention is proved, the employer could justify the impugned dismissal on merits. Referring to another judgment of the Constitution Bench in P. H. Kalyani Vs. M/s. Air France, Calcutta [AIR 1963 SC 1756], it was observed that if the employer fails to prove the ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 ::: wps7525.17 etc. 63 misconduct in proceedings under Section 33A of the Act of 1947, the order of dismissal would become ineffective from the date when such order was passed. It was, thus, held in the facts of said case that the employer having proved the misconduct, the finding in that regard would relate back and the employer-employee relationship between the parties would be deemed to have ended from the date of the dismissal order.
In my view, in the light of this decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which considers the decisions in Punjab National Bank Ltd., Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., P. H. Kalyani and Jaipur Zilla Sahakari Bhoomivikas Bank Ltd. [supra] , it is crystal clear that even if it is prima facie found that there is a contravention of provisions of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947 on account of withdrawal of applications seeking approval to the orders of dismissal, it is still open for the employer to prove the misconduct of the employees in the complaint filed under Section 33A of the Act of 1947 complaining of such contravention. If the final relief of reinstatement depends and hinges upon misconduct being proved by the employer and the relief of reinstatement also being dependent on that aspect, grant of interim relief by way of reinstatement would be impermissible as held in the aforesaid decisions.
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 :::
wps7525.17 etc. 64
16. The learned Senior Counsel for the employer sought to draw support from the judgment of the Division Bench in MRF Ltd., Goa [supra] which effort was sought to be countered by the learned counsel for the employees by contending that the issues decided by the Division Bench of this Court had been referred to a larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goa MRF Employees' Union [supra]. It is, however, to be noted that the larger Bench in Goa MRF Employees' Union Vs. MRF Ltd. [ (2014) 14 SCC 483] did not in the facts of that case find it necessary to decide the question referred to it. In view thereof, the judgment of the Division Bench in MRF Ltd. Goa [supra] continues to hold the field.
However, the legal position being clear in view of the decision in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & another [supra], it is not necessary for this Court to further consider as to whether grant of interim relief would be incidental to the proceedings under Section 33A of the Act of 1947. For that reason, it is not found necessary to refer to the applicability of the other decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties.
17. In the impugned order, the learned Member of the Industrial ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 ::: wps7525.17 etc. 65 Tribunal recorded a finding that the orders of dismissal were prima facie in violation of the provisions of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947 and further observed that the employer would attempt to justify its action of dismissal by adducing evidence. It further observed that hardship would be caused to the employees if they are kept out of employment. On this premise, it proceeded to grant interim relief by passing the impugned order. In the light of the legal position that follows from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to herein above, I do not find that the employees are entitled to reinstatement by way of interim relief in the present proceedings. If in the complaints filed under Section 33A of the Act of 1947, the employer fails to prove the misconduct leading to the orders of dismissal, it goes without saying that the relationship of employer and employee would continue as the order of dismissal would be set aside. The employees at that stage would be entitled for final relief. The law, however, is against the grant of reinstatement by way of interim relief in proceedings under Section 33A of the Act of 1947.
18. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal dated 7th November, 2017 cannot be sustained. That order is accordingly set aside. Writ ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 ::: wps7525.17 etc. 66 Petition Nos.7906 of 2017 and 7918 of 2017 to 7940 of 2017 filed by the employer are allowed. The applications for interim relief filed by the employees stand dismissed. Writ Petition Nos. 7525 of 2017 to 7548 of 2017 filed by the employees are consequently dismissed. In the facts of the case, the complaints filed under Section 33A of the Act of 1947 are expedited. The said complaints be decided in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made in this judgment preferably within a period of four months from today.
19. Rule in all the Writ Petitions is disposed of in aforesaid terms with there being no order as to costs.
Judge
-0-0-0-0- |hedau| ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2018 02:04:31 :::