Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal Through Its Chief Executive Officer v. Ashok Rajaram Bondekar And Others

1 wp23.19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.23 OF 2019 (ZILLA PARISHAD YAVATMAL...VS.. ASHOK RAJARAM BONDEKAR & OTH) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.D.Bhuibhar, Advocate for Petitioner.

Shri V.P.Maldhure, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.16 to 19. CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : JANUARY 07, 2019.

Heard.

The petitioner/employer has challenged the order passed by the Industrial Court, allowing the application filed by the respondent/employee under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 and restraining the employer from terminating the services of the respondent Nos.1 to 4, 6 to 9 and 11 to 15. The respondents are engaged by the petitioner as drivers and according to the respondents they are in service since 2006. It is not the case of the petitioner that they are not in need of driver/ drivers. After hearing the learned advocate for the petitioner and going through the impugned order, I find that the Industrial Court has not committed any error of jurisdiction which necessitates interference by this Court in the extraordinary jurisdiction.

The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

2 wp23.19 Looking to the nature of controversy and as the complaint is of 2015, the Industrial Court is directed to dispose the complaint within nine months.

JUDGE RRaut..