Raosaheb Karbhari Dhakne And Others v. Maharashtra State Financial Corporation And Another
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10651 OF 2013 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL ST.NO.29716 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2534 OF 2011 Raosaheb s/o Karbhari Dhakne and others Petitioners
Versus
Maharashtra State Financial Corporation, Aurangabad & another Respondents Mr.N.P.Bangar, advocate for petitioners.
Mr.Mohan Korde, advocate holding for Mr.P.V.Tapse Patil, advocate for Respondent No.1.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE & P.R.BORA, JJ.
DATE : 09th July, 2015 PER COURT:
This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 188 days occurred in presenting instant Letters Patent Appeal. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, application deserves to be allowed and same is accordingly allowed. Delay of 188 days occurred in presenting instant Letters Patent Appeal stands condoned.
Civil application is disposed of.
P.R.BORA R.M.BORDE JUDGE JUDGE adb/ca1065113
{2}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL ST.NO.29716 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2534 OF 2011 Raosaheb s/o Karbhari Dhakne and others Appellants
Versus
Maharashtra State Financial Corporation, Aurangabad & another Respondents Mr.N.P.Bangar, advocate for appellants.
Mr.Mohan Korde, advocate holding for Mr.P.V.Tapse Patil, advocate for Respondent No.1.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE & P.R.BORA, JJ.
DATE : 09th July, 2015 PER COURT:
Appellants herein were employees of Respondent No.2Mauli Pipes Private Limited. According to appellants, their wages for the work done, which are legally recoverable dues, are to be satisfied by Respondent No.2-employer. The Maharashtra State Financial Corporation is the financing agency which has extended loan to Respondent No.2, employer of appellants. It does appear that since Respondent No.2-employer committed default in payment of loan amount, the Maharashtra State Financial Corporation took over possession of the factory. Appellants initiated proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, against the employer as well as financial agency and the application seeking recovery of the
{3} amount has been allowed by the Industrial Court. The Maharashtra State Financial Corporation approached this Court by presenting Writ Petition No.2534 of 2011, claiming that the financing agency is not employer of the appellants and as such, application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, is not liable to be entertained against the financing agency.
Learned Single Judge has accepted the said contention put forth by the financing agency.
We have perused the order passed by learned Single Judge. Admittedly, Maharashtra State Financial Corporation is not employer of the appellants and as such, is not answerable under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is reasonable and proper. It is open for appellants to avail of alternate remedies available in law for enforcing recovery against the employer. The appeal is devoid of substance.
Letters Patent Appeal stand dismissed. Pending Civil Application does not survive and stand disposed of. P.R.BORA R.M.BORDE JUDGE JUDGE adb/ca1065113