Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Engineering Employees Union vs Devidayal Rolling And Refineries P. ... on 14 October, 1985

Arvind G.Chaudhari And Another vs Nimba Khushal Patil And Another on 13 June, 2019

4 The learned advocate for the respondent/ workman has strenuously contended that this writ petition is not maintainable. I find that in view of the law laid down by this Court in the matters of Engineering Employees Union vs. Devidayal Rolling & Refineries Private Limited, 1986 Mh.L.J. 331 : 1986 (2) Bom.C.R. 246 and Clifford Rebello vs. Hotel Oberoi Towers, (2001) III CLR 805, it is held that the writ petition directly preferred before the High Court challenging the order or judgment of the Labour Court under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 would not be maintainable on account of failure to avail of the statutory remedy of revision under Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R V Ghuge - Full Document

Gram Panchayat Bhada Thru.Sarpanch ... vs Nandu Baburao Partale on 27 June, 2019

4. This Court has laid down a law in the matter of Engineering Employees Union Vs. Devidayal Rolling & Refinery Pvt. Ltd. [1986 (52) FLR 40 = 1986 Mh.L.J. 331], and in the matter of Clifford Rebello Vs. Hotel Oberoi Towers [(2001) III CLR 805], that a writ petition directly challenging the order of the Labour Court under the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, should not be entertained by this Court. However, since this petition was admitted by this Court, I am not ::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 04:17:37 ::: 3 W.P. No. 3946/1999 inclined to entertain the objection of maintainability.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R V Ghuge - Full Document

Garlick Engineering vs Kumar Khanolkar And Anr. on 27 April, 2004

6. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Pradhan, learned Advocate for respondent No. 1, regarding the maintainability of the Writ petition. According to the learned Advocate, the petitioner has not exhausted the efficacious, alternate remedy of filing a revision application before the Industrial Court against the order of the Labour Court. The learned Advocate submits that by approaching the High Court directly, the petitioner has greatly prejudiced the respondent workman who could have established in a Revision that the order of the Labour Court need not be interfered with. He submits that the respondent is deprived of one stage in the process of litigation which has caused great prejudice. The learned Advocate relies on the judgment in the case of Engineering Employees Union v. Devidayal Rolling and Refineries Pvt. Ltd., 1986 Mh.LJ. 331 where the learned single Judge of this Court (R. A. Jahagirdar, J.) considered the scope of Section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act. The learned Judge observed that when the Act itself invests the Industrial Court with the power of superintendence over the orders passed by the Labour Court and that power of superintendence is as wide as the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, a party cannot by-pass the remedy provided for under the Act by approaching this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. In the case of Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services UP and Ors., on which reliance has been placed by the learned Advocate for the respondent, the Supreme Court held that when there is an alternate remedy provided under the Statute a writ petition cannot be maintained on the ground that the Tribunal lacks power to pass interim orders. These submissions of the learned Advocate for the respondent-workman could have been made when the petition was heard for admission. The respondent was heard at the stage of admission and, therefore, it could not be said that the respondent had no opportunity to make such submissions before the Court. In my view, after the petition has been admitted to relegate the petitioner to the remedy of filing the revision application at this stage would not be appropriate, nor would it be in the interest of justice.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - N Mhatre - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra And Anr vs Vishwanath Daulatrao Bhange on 7 April, 2016

4. Ordinarily, considering the law laid down by this Court in several matters and in the matter of Engineering Employees Union Vs. Devidayal Rolling and Refinaries Pvt.Ltd., 1986 (52) FLR 40 = 1986 Mh.L.J. 331, this petition would not have been entertained since the khs/April 2016/4666-d ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:24:34 ::: 3 statutory remedy u/s 44 has not been availed of. However, I am not remitting the petitioners to the revisional jurisdiction of the Industrial Court since this matter is pending final adjudication for almost 15 years.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R V Ghuge - Full Document

Pandurang Gangaramji Karhale vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 9 February, 2016

In the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Engineering Employees Union Vs. Devidayal Rolling and Refineries Pvt. Ltd., Thane reported in 1986 Mh.L.J. 331 and 1986 (52) FLR 40, an order passed by the Labour Court under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, cannot be directly challenged before this Court without exhausting the remedy under Section 44 of the 1971 Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - R V Ghuge - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra & Others vs Manik Pandurang Chaware & Others on 21 October, 2016

4. This Court, in the matter of Engineering Employees Union Vs. Devidayal Rolling and Refinaries Pvt.Ltd., 1986 (52) FLR 40 = 1986 Mh.L.J. 331 has already concluded that any order passed by the Labour Court u/s 28(1), Section 30 and Section 32 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, cannot be directly challenged in this Court without exhausting the remedy of filing of revision petition u/s 44 of the Act of 1971.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R V Ghuge - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra & Others vs Dagadu Yashwant Take & Another on 21 October, 2016

4. This Court, in the matter of Engineering Employees Union Vs. Devidayal Rolling and Refinaries Pvt.Ltd., 1986 (52) FLR 40 = 1986 Mh.L.J. 331 has already concluded that any order passed by the Labour Court u/s 28(1), Section 30 and Section 32 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, cannot be directly challenged in this Court without exhausting the remedy of filing of revision petition u/s 44 of the Act of 1971.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R V Ghuge - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra & Others vs Manik Dagadu Take on 21 October, 2016

4. This Court, in the matter of Engineering Employees Union Vs. Devidayal Rolling and Refinaries Pvt.Ltd., 1986 (52) FLR 40 = 1986 Mh.L.J. 331 has already concluded that any order passed by the Labour Court u/s 28(1), Section 30 and Section 32 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, cannot be directly challenged in this Court without exhausting the remedy of filing of revision petition u/s 44 of the Act of 1971.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R V Ghuge - Full Document
1   2 Next