M/S Uni Kinger Ltd. Ahmednagar. v. Shyam Gopinath Vangar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3220 OF 2011 Uni Klinger Ltd.

C-37, M.I.D.C. Area, Ahmednagar (Through its Plant Manager) Mr. Ashok Chidanand Pattar, Age: 47 years, Occu.: Service, R/o c/o M/s Uni Klinger Ltd., C-37, M.I.D.C., Area, Ahmednagar ..PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. Shyam Gopinath Vangar Age: 35 years, Occu.: Service, R/o 7C, Shramik Nagar, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar.

2. M/s Green Make Jiterndra image, Opp. Of Model Garage, Karve Road, Pune (Through Shri. Shankar Devar) ..RESPONDENTS ....

Mr. V.N. Upadhye, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. P.V. Barde, Advocate for Respondent No.1. ....

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

DATED : 17th FEBRUARY, 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

This Court had recorded the statement of the learned 1 / 3

Counsel for the petitioner-management in its order dated 06.09.2011 which reads as under:

"1.

Mr. Upadhye, the learned counsel states that the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 657 of 2004 in respect of similiarly situated employee whose complaint was allowed. The said Writ Petition is admitted and stay is granted only to the monitory benefits. 2.

In light of the above, Rule. To be heard along with Writ Petition no. 657 of 2004. Rule on interim relief returnable in six (6) weeks i.e. 18.10.2011. Till then, ad-interim stay to the extent of monitory benefits."

2.

This Court by its judgment dated 29.01.2016 in Writ Petition No. 657/2004 between the same petitioner herein and similarly situated employees has dismissed the writ petition and has sustained the judgment of the Industrial Court delivered in Complaint ULP Nos. 222 to 225/1991.

3.

The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that only Respondent No.1-Shyam Gopinath Vangar is still in employment.

2 / 3

4.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks an adjournment. I do not find any reason to adjourn the matter in the light of the companion petition having been decided on 29.01.2016. 5.

Considering the above, this writ petition also stands dismissed in terms of the judgment of this Court dated 29.01.2016 in Writ Petition No. 657/2004. Rule is therefore discharged. ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) 3 / 3