Bombay High Court
Koyala Khadan Shramik Sangh Nagpur Thr. ... vs Union Of India, Ministry Labour Thr. ... on 29 May, 2019
Author: S. M. Modak
Bench: S. M. Modak
1 290519wp3669.19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3669 OF 2019
KOYALA KHADAN SHRAMIK SANGH
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, THRU. SECY., N.DELHI AND OTHERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Akshay Sudame, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs. M. R. Chandurkar, Advocate for respondent no.1
Mr. A. M. Ghare, Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4
CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.
DATE : MAY 29, 2019.
Heard Mr. Akshay Sudame, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. Mugdha R. Chandurkar, the learned standing counsel appears for respondent no.1 and Mr. A.M. Ghare, the learned counsel appears for respondent nos.3 and 4. They waived the notices for the respective respondents and Both the learned counsel are also heard.
Respondent no.3 - Western Coalfields Ltd. has decided to undertake the yearly activity of check-off for the year 2019 and accordingly a Circular dated 01.12.2018 was issued. The check off activity was to be undertaken from 01.4.2019 till 15.4.2019. However, the said period was extended and it is about to be completed from 01.6.2019 till 15.6.2019. The new circular is dated 18.3.2019.
The present petitioner being affiliated to parent organization INTUC, was not permitted by respondent ::: Uploaded on - 30/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2019 01:27:54 ::: 2 290519wp3669.19.odt no.3 to participate in the activity of check off. The letter dated 01.12.2018 only refers to Rashtriya Koyala Khadam Majdoor Sangh, affiliated to INTUC to participate in that activity. The present petitioner is aggrieved by the said letter.
The main relief as sought by the petitioner is to quash the circular dated 18.3.2019 and there is also a prayer for interim relief for allowing the petitioner to participate in the check-off system. There is an alternate prayer also to stay the check-off activity till re-opening of the Court.
Both the learned counsel have brought to my notice the relevant circulars and certain orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition NO. 5320 of 2017. The said petition was filed by Rashtriya Koyala Khadan Majdoor Sangh, affiliated to INTUC (who has been permitted to participate in the check-off activity).
Mr. Sudame, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deoraj .vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 697 on the point that in certain cases relief as sought mainly can also be granted at interim stage, particularly in view of the observations in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said judgment.
After going through the record and the aforesaid orders, I do not think that the interim relief as sought in either of the way can be granted. I do not intend to make ::: Uploaded on - 30/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2019 01:27:54 ::: 3 290519wp3669.19.odt much comment at this stage because that will prejudice the case of the petitioner. Suffice to say that when this Court has passed the orders dated 30.01.2018 and 08.3.2019, which affiliation of INTUC was entitled to participate in the check-off activity in the year 2018 and 2019 was decided and the observations made in the order dated 08.3.2019 are considered by respondent no.3 - Western Coalfields Ltd. When asked to Mr. Ghare, the learned counsel, however decided which affiliation of INTUC is allowed to participate in the check-off activity, he referred to the observations of this Court in the said order. So I do not think that the claim of the petitioner can be considered at this stage. It is true that the court has to balance between the cases wherein interim mandatory relief is to be granted and when it is to be refused. In rarest of rare cases, the Court shall certainly grant interim mandatory relief as said above.
Today, the petitioner has not made out a case for interim intervention of the Court. Hence, I am not inclined to grant it.
JUDGE Diwale ::: Uploaded on - 30/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2019 01:27:54 :::