The Chairman, M/S. Navalji Cotspin Ltd. Nashik v. Narayan Arjunji Vighne (Died) And Others

2025:BHC-NAG:12995 1 18-wp 8503.2019.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 8503 OF 2019 (The Chairman M/s Navalji Cotspin Ltd.(Sutgirni),Akola vs. Narayan Arjunji Vighne (Died) & ors.) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or the directions, Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

Mr. Aakash Sarode and Mr. Ishan Patil, Advocates for petitioner. Mr. A.G.Mate, AGP for respondent No.85.

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.

NOVEMBER 24, 2025 1) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. 2) The present petition is directed against the award dated 18/07/2019 passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati in Complaint (ULP) No.04/2011.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the award was not in accordance with Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He further submits that original respondent No.2 who is respondent No.84 of this petition had already taken over the possession from original respondent No.1/petitioner. During the period from 01/10/2001 to December, 2010 the possession was not with the original respondent No.1/petitioner, but it was with the original respondent No.2/respondent No.84 in this petition, and therefore, once it was brought to the notice that the possession was already taken over, the Industrial Court ought not to have passed the order directing the petitioner to pay wages to the employees for the said period.

4) I have gone through the order passed by the Industrial Court, wherein the Industrial Court has considered the matter as KOLHE

2 18-wp 8503.2019.odt per the record and observed that no formal notice of termination were issued to the respondents herein/complainants by the petitioner (original respondent No.1). Further the petitioner failed to cross-examine the witness of the complainants, as well as they did not raise the said ground in the written statement. 5) Learned Industrial Court upon consideration of record observed that the petitioner/respondent No.1 neither intimated the complainants about non-provision of the work nor provided work because of the dispute between the petitioner and respondents. The findings recorded by the Industrial Court are based on the facts and the evidence led by the respondentscomplainants. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Industrial Court. Hence, the petition sans any merits and same is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) KOLHE