Subhash Krishnarao Thakre And Others v. Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd. Nagpur And Others

2025:BHC-NAG:10988 36 wp 1381.24.odt..odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1381 OF 2024 Subhash Krishnarac Thakre and another .Vs.

Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd. Nagpur, thr. its Managing Director and another __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Mr N.U. Lokhande, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr S.S. Ghate, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr.C.C. Anthony, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR .S. THOMBRE, J.

DATE : 14.10.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

2.

The petitioners assailed the order dated 12.10.2023 passed by learned Member, Industrial Court No.4, Napgur in complaint (ULP) No.76/2017 whereby the complaint filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed. 3.

The issue raised before learned Industrial Court was that respondent No.1 had not deposited the contribution towards provident Fund Account. Therefore, it is alleged that respondent No.1 indulged in unfair Labour Practices under item 9th of Scheduled IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.

4.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits

36 wp 1381.24.odt..odt that there was no violation on the part of respondent No.1, as the amount of contribution was deposited with the Regional Claim Office at Aurangabad after May 2015. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was a violation of any provision of law.

5.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2, RPF Commissioner, also specifically stated that there is no failure on the part of respondent No.1 in depositing its contribution.

6.

I have gone through the order passed by learned Industrial Court and it revealed that it is not the case where contribution was not deposited. In fact the contribution had been deposited by respondent No.1 with the Regional Office at Aurangabad Office. The respondent No.2 has also admitted that the requisite amount of contribution was deposited on the said office.

7.

In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the matter. Therefore, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(SIDDHESHWAR .S. THOMBRE, J.) manisha