Bombay High Court
Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd., Through Its ... vs Mr. Tushar Ganpatrao Hande on 26 June, 2018
Author: S.B. Shukre
Bench: S.B. Shukre
1 wp.2856.18.jud
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2856 OF 2018
Petitioners : 1] Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Chairman Shri Vijay Darda,
Regd. Address 126-B, 12th Floor,
Mittal Tower, Nariman Point,
Mumbai: 400 021.
2] Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.
Through the Managing Director
Shri Devendra Vijay Darda, having its
Office at 126-B, 12th Floor, Mittal Tower,
Nariman Point, Mumbai : 400 021.
3] Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.
Through Assistant Vice President - HR
Shri Balaji Muley, Lokmat Bhavan,
Jalna Road, Aurangabad : 431 003.
-- Versus --
Respondent : Mrs. Tushar Ganpatrao Hande,
Aged about 54 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o Chaure Plot, Opposite Hotel Skylab,
Akola, Tq. & Distt. Akola.
with
WRIT PETITION NO.2857 OF 2018
Petitioners : 1] Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Chairman Shri Vijay Darda,
Regd. Address 126-B, 12th Floor,
Mittal Tower, Nariman Point,
Mumbai: 400 021.
2] Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.
Through the Managing Director
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 00:35:14 :::
2 wp.2856.18.jud
Shri Devendra Vijay Darda, having its
Office at 126-B, 12th Floor, Mittal Tower,
Nariman Point, Mumbai : 400 021.
3] Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.
Through Assistant Vice President - HR
Shri Balaji Muley, Lokmat Bhavan,
Jalna Road, Aurangabad : 431 003.
-- Versus --
Respondent : Mr. Dilip s/o Dattatraya Grihe,
Aged about 46 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o MRLD Colony, Gitanagar, Akola.
with
WRIT PETITION NO.2858 OF 2018
Petitioners : 1] Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Chairman Shri Vijay Darda,
Regd. Address 126-B, 12th Floor,
Mittal Tower, Nariman Point,
Mumbai: 400 021.
2] Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.
Through the Managing Director
Shri Devendra Vijay Darda, having its
Office at 126-B, 12th Floor, Mittal Tower,
Nariman Point, Mumbai : 400 021.
3] Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.
Through Assistant Vice President - HR
Shri Balaji Muley, Lokmat Bhavan,
Jalna Road, Aurangabad : 431 003.
-- Versus --
Respondent : Mr. Sanat s/o Kesharchand Ahale,
Aged about 59 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o Near Pundalik Maharaj Ashram,
Raut Wadi, Akola, Tq. & Distt. Akola.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 00:35:14 :::
3 wp.2856.18.jud
with
WRIT PETITION NO.2859 OF 2018
Petitioners : 1] Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Chairman Shri Vijay Darda,
Regd. Address 126-B, 12th Floor,
Mittal Tower, Nariman Point,
Mumbai: 400 021.
2] Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.
Through the Managing Director
Shri Devendra Vijay Darda, having its
Office at 126-B, 12th Floor, Mittal Tower,
Nariman Point, Mumbai : 400 021.
3] Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.
Through Assistant Vice President - HR
Shri Balaji Muley, Lokmat Bhavan,
Jalna Road, Aurangabad : 431 003.
-- Versus --
Respondent : Mr. Bhaurao s/o Nagorao Dhote,
Aged about 61 years,
Occupation : Retired,
R/o Narsingpur, Post Chicholi,,
Tahsil Karanja (Ghadge), District Wardha.
with
WRIT PETITION NO.2860 OF 2018
Petitioners : 1] Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Chairman Shri Vijay Darda,
Regd. Address 126-B, 12th Floor,
Mittal Tower, Nariman Point,
Mumbai: 400 021.
2] Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.
Through the Managing Director
Shri Devendra Vijay Darda, having its
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 00:35:14 :::
4 wp.2856.18.jud
Office at 126-B, 12th Floor, Mittal Tower,
Nariman Point, Mumbai : 400 021.
3] Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.
Through Assistant Vice President - HR
Shri Balaji Muley, Lokmat Bhavan,
Jalna Road, Aurangabad : 431 003.
-- Versus --
Respondent : Mr. Subhash s/o Ramrao Tayade,
Aged about 65 years,
Occupation : Retired,
R/o Near Saoji Convent, Fadke Nagar,
Akola.
with
WRIT PETITION NO.2861 OF 2018
Petitioners : 1] Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Chairman Shri Vijay Darda,
Regd. Address 126-B, 12th Floor,
Mittal Tower, Nariman Point,
Mumbai: 400 021.
2] Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.
Through the Managing Director
Shri Devendra Vijay Darda, having its
Office at 126-B, 12th Floor, Mittal Tower,
Nariman Point, Mumbai : 400 021.
3] Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd.
Through Assistant Vice President - HR
Shri Balaji Muley, Lokmat Bhavan,
Jalna Road, Aurangabad : 431 003.
-- Versus -
Respondent : Mr. Rajendra s/o Baburao Malamkar,
Aged about 55 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o Near Vivekanand Ashram,
Sudhir Colony, Akola, Tq. & Distt. Akola.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 00:35:14 :::
5 wp.2856.18.jud
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Shri M.G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate with Shri R.M. Bhangde,
Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri A.S. Dhore, Advocate for the Respondent.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATE : 26th JUNE, 2018.
COMMON JUDGMENT :-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent.
02] These petitions challenge two orders passed on
06/04/2018 and 19/04/2018 by the Labour Court. By the first
order passed on 06/04/2018, the application for recasting of
Issue No.1 was allowed but the preliminary objection taken by
the petitioners that the issue as to, whether or not the
respondents were workmen be decided first as a preliminary
issue, was rejected. By the second order passed on 19/04/2018,
the application of the respondents for directing the petitioners to
produce documents i.e. balance-sheet of the whole of the
newspaper establishment of the petitioners on record of the
case, was allowed. These orders are identically passed in all
matters and, therefore, all these petitions challenging the
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 00:35:14 :::
6 wp.2856.18.jud
identical orders are being disposed of by this common order.
03] As regards the first order dated 06/04/2018, the main
reason given by the Labour Court appears to be the law which
came later prevailed over the previous law and so the ratio of
latest judgment deserved to be followed. This reason appears to
be inconsistent with the settled principle of law of precedents.
The law on this point has been clarified by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar Bafna vs. State of
Maharashtra and another - AIR 2014 SC 1745 . when it observed
in paragraph 15 :
"15. ........... It is often encountered in High Courts
that two or more mutually irreconcilable decisions of
the Supreme Court are cited at the Bar. We think
that the inviolable recourse is to apply the earliest
view as the succeeding ones would fall in the
category of per incuriam."
04] It appears that, this law was not pointed out to the
lower Court and although it should have been brought to the
notice of the appellate Court, it being relevant for adjudicating
upon the issue involved in the present case. If the law so laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which is germane to the issue
involved in this case, is considered, there would be a sea change
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 00:35:14 :::
7 wp.2856.18.jud
in the reflections that would appear in the order to be passed by
the Labour Court while deciding the application at Exh.C/13 as
regards the preliminary issue. For this reason, I am of the view
that so far as the first order passed below application at
Exh.C/13 is concerned, same cannot be treated as an order
consistent with the settled principle of law and therefore it would
have to be quashed and set aside and the matter remanded
back to the trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with
law.
05] As regards the second order passed below application
at Exh.U-5 on 19/04/2018, I must say that this order drawing
heavily from the various recommendations of Majithia Award,
which has been accepted by the Central Government, does so
only halfheartedly. There is a paragraph 3 appearing in Section-
II of the award, which contains another clause (a)(ii). This clause
appears to be relevant for deciding the issue involved in this
application. This relevant clause, however, it is seen from the
impugned order, has missed the attention of the Labour Court
altogether and the result is passing of an order, which is illegal.
Such an order can also be not sustained in the eye of law.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 00:35:14 :::
8 wp.2856.18.jud
06] In the result, the writ petitions deserve to be allowed.
Hence, the following order :
ORDER
i. The writ petitions are allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 06/04/2018 and 19/04/2018 are hereby quashed and set aside.
iii. Both the applications are remanded back to the Labour Court for their trial afresh in accordance with law.
iv. The Labour Court shall make an endavour to dispose of these applications as expeditiously as possible.
v. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.
(S.B. SHUKRE, J.) *sandesh ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 00:35:14 :::