Bombay High CourtWP/4683/1995dismissedrule discharged

Power Loom Industrial Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. Dinkar Keshavrao Joshi And Others.

2016-08-11Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge8 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4286 OF 1995 Jyoti Power-loom Cooperative Society Latur, Digambar Narsing Tonpe, Age-50 years, Occu-Service, R/o Latur, WRIT PETITION NO.4676 OF 1995 Society Ltd., Latur, Dist.Latur, Mrs.Sushila Basappa Achare, Age-38 years, Occu-Service, R/o Latur,

WRIT PETITION 4678 OF 1995 Society Ltd., Latur, Dist.Latur, Kakasaheb Janardhan Parame, Age-42 years, Occu-Service, R/o Latur, WRIT PETITION 4681 OF 1995 Society Ltd., Latur, Dist.Latur, Sitaram Madhavrao Bolegave, Age-45 years, Occu-Service, R/o Motinagar, Latur,

WRIT PETITION 4691 OF 1995 Society Ltd., Latur, Dist.Latur, Sudhakar S/o Narhar Renapurkar, Age-40 years, Occu-Service, R/o Bodhenagar, Latur WRIT PETITION 4692 OF 1995 Society Ltd., Latur, Dist.Latur, Raosaheb S/o Dattopant Jevarikar,

Age-41 years, Occu-Service, R/o Bodhenagar, Latur.

WRIT PETITION 4683 OF 1995 Society Ltd., Latur, Dist.Latur, Dinkar S/o Keshavrao Joshi, Age-Major, Occu-Service, R/o Borfal, Tq. Ausa, Dist.Latur Mr.B.N.Patil, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.P.G.Borade, AGP for the respondent/State.

Ms.Ashvini Mate h/f Mr.A.H.Kasliwal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Mr.R.D.Bhise h/f Mr.S.V.Natu, Advocate for respondent No.3 (in WP No.4676/1995) Mr.B.R.Sontakke Patil, Advocate for respondent No.1 (In WP No.4692/1995)

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) DATE : 11/08/2016 ORAL JUDGMENT :

I have heard Mr.Patil, learned Advocate for the petitioner/Society in all these matters and the learned Advocates on behalf of the respondents for quite some time. These petitions are admitted by this Court on 01/07/1998, This Court, by its judgment dated 18/07/2016, in identical set of facts involving the same petitioner/Co-operative Society and identically placed workmen in WP Nos.4325/1995 to 4327/1995, 4677/1995, 4679/1995, 4680/1995 and 4682/1995, has considered the issue raised by the petitioner and has dismissed all the said petitions.

This Court, in its judgment dated 18/07/2016, has observed in paragraph Nos.1 to 9 as under :- "1.

The petitioner in all these matters are aggrieved by the judgments dated 12/12/1994 and 05/10/1994 delivered by the Labour Court, Latur in a group of Application (IDA) Nos.157/1993, 158/1993, 159/1993, 106/1992, 101/1992, 99/1992, 227/1993 respectively.

I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides for quite some time.

Mr.Patil, learned Advocate for the petitioners has strenuously criticized the impugned judgments. Contention is that issue No.1 framed by the Labour Court has not been properly considered and the impugned orders reflect non application of mind. He, therefore, submits that though the service tenure of the respondents employees and their claims for special allowance may not be disputed, the fact remains that since the petitioner/society was in liquidation, no proceedings before any Court could be entertained in lieu of the bar u/s 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Learned Advocate Mr.Venjane has supported the impugned orders.

I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates.

This Court has, in the matter of Baburao Dadarao Kolhe and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2004(2) Mh.L.J. 898, dealt with a similar issue considering the claim of the workers for the unpaid wages during the pendency of liquidation proceedings. The learned Division Bench concluded that as the claim of the workers was not in relation to the business of the society and was purely a claim of wages, it was not necessary to

array the liquidator or seek permission of the liquidator. Even if, such permission was sought, it should be granted. 7.

In the light of the above and considering the passage of 21 years, I do not find any reason to cause interference with the impugned judgments.

These petitions, being devoid of merit, are therefore dismissed. Rule is discharged.

Civil applications, if any, do not survive and hence are disposed of."

Considering the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, I do not find that different circumstances have been indicated so as to convince this Court to take a different view. 5.

As such, these petitions, being devoid of merit, are therefore dismissed. Rule is discharged.

Civil applications, if any, do not survive and hence are disposed of.

Mr.Sontakke, learned Advocate points out that this Court had

directed on 28/02/2000 in CA No.5211/1999 that if the property is sold by the Liquidator, he shall deposit all the sale proceeds in this Court. The Registry of this Court informs that no amount has been deposited by the Liquidator in this Court. As such, the respondents would be at liberty to take appropriate steps for the recovery of their amounts granted by the Court below.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)