Jai Yogeshwar Kisan Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Brahamanpuri Through Chairman v. Shri P K Anna Patil Janta Sahakari Bank Limited Nandurbar Through Authorized Officer And Others
*1*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8566 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.13032 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8567 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.13010 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8568 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.13042 OF 2018 JAI YOGESHWAR KISAN SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT
VERSUS
SHRI P.K.ANNA PATIL JANTA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED AND OTHERS ...
Advocate for the Applicants : Shri Ajay G. Talhar Advocate for Respondent no.1/ original petitioner : Shri Ajinkya Deshmukh h/f Shri Hon Ashwin V.
Advocate for the other Respondents / original complainants : Shri Patil Shrikant S.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 27th September, 2019 Per Court:
The applicant society seeks leave to intervene in the writ petitions in which, the judgments of the Industrial Court in ULP complaints have been challenged. It is conceded that this applicant society
*2* was not a party to the individual complaints before the Industrial Court. Considering the scope of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, in which, an aggrieved party seeking declaration of ULP against the respondent, is based on employer-employee relationship and is a personal cause of action, the applicant society cannot be permitted to intervene in such proceedings. These three Civil Applications are, therefore, rejected. kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
*3*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.13010 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.13032 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.13042 OF 2018 SHRI P.K.ANNA PATIL JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
RAJAN VISHNU CHAUK AND OTHERS ...
Advocate for the petitioners : Shri Ajinkya Deshmukh h/f Shri Hon Ashwin V.
Advocate for the Respondents / complainants : Shri Patil Shrikant S. ...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 27th September, 2019 Per Court:
In all these matters, the petitioner/ management has filed only three petitions. It is pointed out that in the first writ petition no.13010/2018, there were 12 individual ULP complaints, in the second writ petition no.13032/2018, there were 19 individual ULP complaints and in the third writ petition no.13042/2018, there were 121 individual ULP complaints. The court fees have been deposited as against all the individual workers, as per the statement of the learned advocate for the petitioners.
*4* In view of the above, each of these writ petitions shall be restricted to the first respondent pertaining to his individual ULP complaint. Insofar as the remaining respondents are concerned, the petitioner/ management shall file individual writ petitions. The documents need not be filed. The index, synopsis and identical memo of the writ petitions can be filed. Such petitions shall be filed on or before 09.10.2019. Court fees are exempted.
Shri Patil, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the individual workers, will accept the copies of the writ petitions and will not insist on notice.
List these matters in the urgent admissions category on 14.10.2019.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)