Bombay High Court
M/S Mattel Toys (India) Pvt. Ltd. Shri. ... vs Bala S/O Shriram Samrit And Others on 27 November, 2018
Author: Z.A.Haq
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp599.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.599 OF 2016
(M/S. MATTEL TOYS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ...VS.. BALA SHRIRAM SAMRIT & OTH.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.J. Pathak, Adv. H/f. Shri V.A.Bramhe, Advocate for Petitioner.
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : NOVEMBER 27, 2018.
None appears for the respondents/employees. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner/employer.
The order passed by the Industrial Court allowing the complaint filed by the employees under Section 28 read with Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 is challenged by the employer. By the impugned order, the Industrial Court has upheld the claim of the employee for additional amount of Rs.15,000/- for complainant apart from the amount paid by the employer to the employee at the time of accepting voluntary retirement as per the policy floated by the employer. The Industrial Court, after considering the rival submissions, has recorded that the employer has paid additional amount of Rs.15,000/- to each of the employee whose case was pending before the Industrial Court. The facts on record show that the employer denied the additional amount of Rs.15,000/- to the present respondents as they accepted the voluntary retirement and had raised any grievance before any Forum. The Industrial Court has recorded that there is no justification on the part of the employer for this discrimination.
::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 09:31:35 :::2 wp599.16 I find that the conclusions of the Industrial Court are based on appreciation of material on record. It cannot be said that the Industrial Court has taken a view which is not possible in the facts of the case. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE RRaut..
::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 09:31:35 :::