Shetkari Sahakari Sangh Ltd. v. Keraba Baburao Jambhale And ORS
DDR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Digitally signed by DIKSHA DINESH RANE Date:
2021.09.23 20:03:30 +0530 DIKSHA DINESH RANE WRIT PETITION NO. 3779 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
DATTATRAY HINDURAO YADAV & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 1464 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
BABURAO KASHINATH HAJARE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 1629 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
SUDHAKAR SHANKAR MALI & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 1631 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
GANPATI BHAU KAMBALE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 1635 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
RAMCHANDRA BABURAO MALI & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 1639 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
MANGAL VASANT KHARPE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS
WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 1644 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
ISHWARA VITHOBA DHOKARE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 1647 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
BANDU BABASO LOKHANDE AND ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2075 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
SHEKHARCHAND DADASO CHARATE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 740 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
BALASO DAGADU KHAMKAR & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2095 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
BALKRUSHAN GOVINDRAO SHINDE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2097 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
PRATAP JAYSING GHORPADE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2100 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER
VS.
SHIVAJI ESHWARA PURIBUWA & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2106 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
SANTAJI RAMRAO GHORPADE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2108 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
NARHARI KRUSHNAJI KULKARNI & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2116 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
SARJERAO RAMCHANDRA NIMBALKAR & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 741 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
SHARAD BALAPPA RATNAPGOL & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2353 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
PUNDALIK BHARAMU BOKADE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2354 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
ANIL DNYANDEV KUMBHAR & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS
WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2358 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
PANDIT DHONDIRAM KHAMKAR & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2375 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
PANDURANG RAMKRUSHAN PISE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2456 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
NAMDEV PANDURANG BHOPALE AND ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2458 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
NARAYAN SHATUPPA BHANDURGE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 737 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
RAMA BALU KUMBHAR & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2465 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
DHANAJI YESHWANT VICHARE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 3224 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER
VS.
MARUTI BABU KOLI & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 3230 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
LILABAI VASANTRAO YADAV & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 3233 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
MAHIPATI ANANDA POL & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS.
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 739 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
ARUN RAMCHANDRA AAMANE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 738 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
AASHA ANANT LOHAR & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4366 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
KERABA BABURAO JAMBHALE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3912 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
NAZIR APPALAL MULLA & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3915 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
RAJARAM YESHWANT JADHAV ..RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3914 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
RAMCHANDRA ARJUN MANE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3911 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
SARJERAO TUKARAM WADKAR & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3916 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
PANDURANG DATTU MORBALE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3913 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
PRABHAVATI PRAKASH DESAI & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 11878 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
DADASO DATTOBA SATHE & ANR.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3927 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER
VS.
DHONDIRAM DNYANU PATIL & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3973 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
RATNAMALA SHANKAR CHOUDHARI & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3936 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
SUSHILA VASANTRAO PATIL & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3937 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
AJIT AABASO PATIL & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3935 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
HAIBATI GANAPATI RAMOSHI & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3938 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
PANDURANG BALKU SHINDE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 11885 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
BALASO TUKARAM PATIL & ANR.
..RESPONDENTS
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3939 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
BAJIRAO VITHTHAL PATIL & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3943 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
NAMDEV MAHIPATI DESAI & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3940 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
RAJARAM DADASO KOTHAWALE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3944 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
MANSUR BADSHAHA SANADI & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4003 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
DHULAPPA RAMCHANDRA KHOLAPE & ANR.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3942 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
BANUBAI PANDURANG SAWANT & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3941 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER
VS.
BABASO PARSHURAM PATIL & ANR.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 11901 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
NANDKUMAR VITTHAL GAWANKAR & ANR.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 11902 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
SADASHIV RAMCHANDRA CHAUDHARI & ANR. ..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 11903 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
KRUSHNA SHANKAR MALKAR & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3925 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
TAJUDDIN ABDUL MANER & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 11906 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
ASHOK DUNDAPPA SHINTRE & ANR.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3924 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
SHIVAJI RAMU DESAI AND ORS.
..RESPONDENTS
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3931 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
GUNDU RAVAJI BHUEMBAR & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 11909 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
FATTESINGH DATTARAY CHAVAN & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3929 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
ANANDA SHRIPATI CHOUGULE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 11911 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
JAYSING SADU SHENDGE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3920 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
BHAIRU RAMCHANDRA NAIK & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 11914 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
DATTU RAWAJI PATIL & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3928 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER
VS.
PRAKASH BABASO SHINDE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3995 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
RAJARAM GOVIND KAMBLE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3919 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
SURYAKANT PANDURANG NIMBALKAR & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3918 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
BALASO RAMCHANDRA JADHAV & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4004 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
BABASAHEB SADASHIV PATIL & ANR.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3948 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
MADHAVRAO KRUSHNARAO KATKAR & ANR.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4005 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
GANAPATI RAMCHANDRA GHATGE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS
WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 11967 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
SHAMRAO KUSHNAJI PATIL & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3947 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
DHONDIRAM BABU HALWANKAR & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3958 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
SHAMRAO ANNASAHEB SARNOBAT & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3949 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
SANTAPPA ALLAS SATISH RAMCHANDRA BACHANKAR & ANR.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3946 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
ANNASO NAMDEV PATIL & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 11973 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
RANGARAO TUKARAM PATIL & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 11976 OF 2021
SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
SUBHASH BANDU AADAKE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 11979 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
BAPU SAYYAD BAHURUPI AND ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 11981 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
VILAS BALAWANT GURAV & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 11983 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
MAKBUL SIKANDAR ROHILE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 11989 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
MASJID YUNUS MULLA & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3945 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
RAMCHANDRA DAULAT MALAVI & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3956 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
MOHAN RAWAJI SURYAWANSHI AND ORS.
..RESPONDENTS
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3957 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
ASHOK GANAPATI GHORPADE & ANR.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3967 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
ANIL RAMRAO GAIKWAD & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3950 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
ANIL RAMCHANDRA GHORPADE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4157 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
VILAS GANGADHAR DHANAL & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4141 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
SHIVAJI KRUSHNA KARADE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4130 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
SHASHIKALA RANGARAO PATIL & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4128 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER
VS.
BALAWANT MAHADEV RANMALE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3951 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
VIJAY BALKRUSHAN MANE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4123 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
SANJAY GAJANAN SASANE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS.
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3953 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
SATAPPA JOTI KHARADE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4124 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
SATAPPA DNYANU KHADE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4146 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
VILAS BAPUSO KURNE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4127 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
ANANDA KRUSHNA PATIL & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4150 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
SAMPAT VILASRAO INAMDAR & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 12627 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
KRUSHNANT BHUJANGE SHINGARE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4145 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
PANDURANG NARAYAN MANE DESHMUKH & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3964 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
KRUSHANAT BABU TAWADE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4156 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
VASANT MARUTI BIDRIWADI & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4147 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
MADHUKAR GANPATI GIJAWANE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS
WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 12632 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
SATAPPA SHIVAJI HALADKAR AND ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3961 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
MAHADEV TATOBA TIBILE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 12634 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
SHRIPATI LAXMAN DESAI & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 12636 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
DHONDIRAM ANANDA PATIL & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4152 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
BALIRAM DNYANDEO CHANDEKAR & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS.
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3962 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
VILAS VYANKATRAO INGALE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4151 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
RAVINDRA BALIRAM DESAI AND ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4122 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
CHANDRAKANT YESHWANTRAO CHAVAN & ORS...RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4119 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
SIDHADAPPA MARUTI KURLE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4153 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
NIVRUTTI JANARDAN WANDAKAR & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4121 of 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
VISHWAS PANDURANG CHAUGULE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 12648 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
VILAS PANDURANG MOHITE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4143 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER
VS.
SURESH RAMCHANDRA AAMANE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4132 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
JAYRAM AAPPA CHIMANE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3960 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
RAMCHANDRA DNYANDEV SHIPOORE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4131 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
UMAJI RAMCHANDRA ULAPE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3955 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
SHIVAJI GANAPATI HUJURE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4154 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
VISHNU GANGARAM DHONUKSHE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3965 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
MARUTI ANANDA KUDALE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4148 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
PRAKASH SHRIPATI PATIL & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3966 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
PRAKASH SADASHIV LAMBE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4126 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
ANANT MARUTI WALWEKAR & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3922 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
ASHOK JAMBU WARDHAMANE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3932 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
DHONDIRAM HINDURAO PATIL & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3933 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
INDUBAI BAPUSO JADHAV & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3934 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER
VS.
CHARUDATTA SHRIRANG PAILWAN & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4134 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
BHAGAWAN GANPATI PATIL & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3917 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
PANDURANG SHANKAR SHINDE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3926 OF 2021 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
TANAJI PRATAPRAO MANE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 8217 OF 2021 (NOT ON BOARD. TAKEN ON BOARD) SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
BALIRAM YESHWANT SHINDE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 8221 OF 2021 (NOT ON BOARD. TAKEN ON BOARD) SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
KRUSHNA BAPUSO JADHAV & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3921 OF 2021 (NOT ON BOARD. TAKEN ON BOARD) SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
SATURAM APPA PATIL & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 13056 OF 2021 (NOT ON BOARD. TAKEN ON BOARD) SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
SHRIPATI LAXMAN KALAMKAR & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 13057 OF 2021 (NOT ON BOARD. TAKEN ON BOARD) SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
VITTHAL DATTATRAY JADHAV & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 12644 OF 2021 (NOT ON BOARD. TAKEN ON BOARD) SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
NARAYAN SAMBHAJI SHINDE & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2129 OF 2021 (NOT ON BOARD. TAKEN ON BOARD) SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.
..PETITIONER VS.
VIJAYKUMAR B. DESAI & ORS.
..RESPONDENTS --------------------- Mr. S.S. Pakale a/w. Vijay Vaidya i/b. S.M. Katkar for petitioners. Mr. P.P. Pujari, AGP for the State.
Smt. M.S. Bane, AGP for the State.
Mr. A.P. Vanarse, AGP for the State.
Smt. V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for the State.
Mr. Amit Singh a/w. Vivek Patil and Mithun Khaire i/b. Abhay Nevagi & Associates for respondent Nos. 1 in all Petitions. ---------------------
CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 3, 2021 ORAL ORDER :
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties and heard finally.
2.
As common issues are involved in the present Petitions the same are disposed by a common order.
3.
The challenge in these Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the judgment and award passed by the Presiding Ofcer, First Labour Court, Kolhapur whereby the reference is partly allowed. The Labour Court held that the petitioner ('employer' for short) illegally terminated the services of the respondent ('employees' for short) and directed the employer to pay compensation. The employees had crossed the age of retirement (60 years) as per the Model Standing Orders on the date of the impugned order and hence there was no question of reinstatement, hence compensation.
4.
The controversy relates to reduction of the age of retirement of employees from 60 years to 55 years. Before the Labour Court, employees contended that the Model Standing
Orders applicable stipulates the age of retirement as 60 years. Without following any procedure prescribed by law, the employer unilaterally reduced the age of retirement to 55 years. According to the employees, though the employer says that the employees stand retired upon attaining the age of 55 years in terms of 'Nokarnama', the same is nothing but illegal termination of the services amounting to otherwise dismissal. According to them, the 'Nokarnama' is contrary to the Model Standing Orders and therefore the same cannot be acted upon. Any action taken under the said 'Nokarnama', which does not have the sanction of law has to be termed 'illegal'.
5.
The employees, by a letter addressed to the employer, raised the demand for reinstatement with continuity and back wages. The letter was not replied by the employer. Between the years 2016 and 2018, the employees approached the Conciliation Ofcer under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for short). The reference is then made by the State Government for adjudication of the dispute under Section 10 of the said Act to the First Labour Court, Kolhapur. The terms of the reference for adjudication pertain to the illegal termination of the services of the employees by the employer.
6.
Before the Labour Court, it was one of the contention of the employer that the reference sufers from delay and laches and therefore hopelessly barred by time. The employer urged that the claim of the employees is stale and hence, the reference deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. According to the employer, the employees accepted the retiral dues without murmur or protest and acquiesced to the action of the employer retiring them at the age of 55 years and hence precluded from raising a challenge to the said action, that too belatedly. 7.
The Labour Court was of the opinion, that though the reference is belatedly filed, the dispute was live on the date of the reference and hence deserved to be adjudicated on merits. The plea of delay and laches was turned down. 8.
For convenience, the chart which was tendered by the employer at the time of hearing, containing the details of names of the petitioners/employees, Petition number, date of actual retirement at reduced age (55 years), date of retirement (60 years) as per Model Standing Orders, date of letter addressed to the Conciliation Ofcer and the date of reference is reproduced below:- SR.
NAME OF THE PETITIONER PETITION DATE OF WHEN 60 YRS DATE OF DATE OF
ACTUAL RETIREMENT LETTER TO CONCILIATION ARE COMPLETED NO.
NO.
REFERENCE AT 55 YRS.
OFFICER OF AGE BABAURAO K. HAJARE ST. 1464 OF 30-04-2006 30/04/2011 26-03-2017 21-07-2018 2.
DATTARAY HINDURAO YADAV W.P.NO. 3779 OF 2021 25/12/2006 25/12/2011 19/09/2016 21/07/2018 3.
SUDHAKAR SHANKAR MALI ST. 1629/2021 31/05/2009 31/05/2014 29/12/2016 21/07/2018 4.
GANPATI BHAU KAMBLE ST. 1631/2021 25/05/2009 25/05/2009 03/10/2018 30/07/2018 5.
MANGAL VASANT KHARAPE ST. 1639/2021 31/05/2014 31/05/2018 13/10/2016 21/07/2018 6.
BALKRISHNA GOVIND SHINDE ST. 2095/2021 15/08/2014 15/08/2014 15/05/2017 7.
BANDU BABASO LOKHANDE ST. 1647/2021 13/04/2012 13/04/2016 27/12/2017 8.
ISHWARA VITHOBA DHOKARE ST. 1644/2021 29/02/2012 29/02/2016 13/02/2017 21/07/2018 9.
SHARAD BALAPPA RATNAPGOL 741/2021 30/09/2005 30/09/2011 17/10/2016 21/07/2018 10.
BALASO DAGADU KHAMKAR 740/2021 01/04/2011 04/04/2016 18/08/2017 21/07/2018 11.
VIJAYKUMAR BHAUSO DESAI ST. 2129/ 01/06/2008 01/06/2013 21/10/2016 21/07/2018 12.
SARJERAO RAMCHANDRA NIMBALKAR ST. 2116/2021 03/06/2013 03/06/2017 13/10/2016 21/07/2018 13.
SANTAJI RAMRAO GHORPADE ST. 2106/2021 19/05/2003 19/05/2008 03/10/2016 30/07/2018 14.
NARHARI KRISHNAJI KULKARNI ST. 2108/2021 21/02/2005 21/02/2011 09/09/2018 21/07/2018 15.
SHEKARCHAND DADASO CHARATE ST. 2075/2021 14/10/1999 14/10/2004 21/07/2018 16.
ASHA ANANT LOHAR 738/2021 31/05/2014 31/05/2019 24/10/2016 21/07/20018 17.
ANIL DNYANDEV KUMBHAR ST. 2354/2021 31/05/2012 31/05/2017 19/09/2016 21/07/2018 18.
LILABAI VASANTRAO YADAV St.3230/2021 25/05/2007 25/05/2012 29/09/2016 30/07/2018 19.
MAHPATI ANANDA POL St.3233/2021 31/05/2007 31/05/2012 13/12/2017 21/07/2018 20.
RAMA BALU KUMBHAR 737/2021 31/10/2009 31/10/2014 19/09/2016 21/07/2018 21.
PUNDALIK BHARAMU BOKADE ST. 2353/2021 30/05/2011 30/05/2016 26/12/2016 21/07/2018 22.
ARUN RAMCHANDRA AMANE 739/2021 07/03/2009 07/03/2014 13/02/2017 21/07/2018 23.
SHIVAJI ESHWARA PURIBUWA ST. 2100/2021 31/05/2011 31/05/2016 19/09/2016 21/07/2018
24.
PRATAP JAYSING GHORPADE ST. 2097/2021 07/07/2008 07/07/2013 24/10/2016 30/07/2018 25.
PANDIT DHONDIRAM KHAMKAR ST. 2358/ 30/04/2009 30/04/2014 19/08/2017 21/07/2018 26.
DHANAJI YASHWANT VICHARE ST. 2465/2021 14/06/2012 14/06/2017 23/05/2017 21/07/2018 27.
NARAYAN SHATAPPA BHANDURGE ST. 2458/2021 21/02/2005 21/02/2011 19/09/2016 21/07/2018 28.
MARUTI BABU KOLI ST.3224 /2021 31/05/2013 31/05/2018 05/12/2018 21/07/2018 29.
NAMDEV PANDURANG BHOPALE ST. 2456/2021 21/02/2005 21/02/2010 13/12/2016 21/07/2018 30.
PANDURANG RAMKRUSHNA PISE ST. 2375/2021 21/02/2005 21/02/2010 03/10/2016 21/07/2018 31.
VILAS GANGADHAR DHANAL 4157/2021 17/08/2000 17/08/2006 32.
SHIVAJI KRUSHNA KHARADE 3953/2021 31/05/2007 31/05/2012 33.
SHASHIKALA RANGRAO PATIL 4130/2021 21/02/2005 21/02/2010 34.
BALWANT MAHADEO RANMALE 4128/2021 14/10/2009 14/10/2014 35.
VIJAY BALKRUSHNA MANE 3951/2021 01/01/2014 01/01/2019 36.
SANJAY GAJANAN SASANE 4123/2021 13/07/2012 13/07/2017 37.
SATAPPA JOTI KHARADE 3953/2021 21/02/2005 21/02/2010 38.
SATAPP ADNYANU KHADE 4124/2021 05/06/2010 05/06/2015 39.
VILAS BABUSO KURNE 4146/2021 30/04/2005 30/04/2010 40.
ANANDA KRISHNA PATIL 4150/2021 08/04/2004 08/04/2009 41.
SAMPAT VILASRAO INAMDAR ST. 1226/2021 03/05/2012 03/05/2017 42.
KRUSHNANT BHUJANGE SHINGARE ST.
12627/2021 14/05/2006 14/05/2011 43.
PANDURANG NARAYAN MANEDESHMUKH 4145/2021 12/08/2005 12/08/2010 44.
KRUSHNANT BABU TAWADE 3964/2021 31/05/2007 31/05/2012 45.
VASNAT MARUTI BIDRWADI 4156/2021 14/10/2006 14/10/2011 46.
MADHUKAR GANPATI GIJWANE 4147/2021 21/02/2005 21/02/2010 47.
SATAPPA SHIVAJI HALADKAR ST.
12632/2021 01/06/2006 01/06/2011 48.
MAHADEV TATOBA TIBILE 3961/2021 21/02/2005 21/02/2010
49.
SHRIPALAXMAN DESAI ST.
12634/2021 30/05/2009 30/05/2014 50.
DHONDIRAM ANANTA PATIL ST.
12636/2021 29/05/2014 29/05/2019 51.
BALIRAM DNYANDEV CHANDEKAR 4152/2021 31/03/2009 31/03/2014 52.
VILAS VYANKATRAO INGALE 3962/2021 21/02/2005 21/02/2010 53.
RAVINDRA BALIRAM DESAI 4151/2021 01/11/2014 01/11/2019 54.
CHANDRAKANT YASHWANT CHAVAN 4122/2021 21/02/2005 21/02/2010 55.
SIDHAPPA MARUTI KURLE 4119/2021 29/11/2008 29/11/2011 56.
NIVRUTTI JANARDHAN WANDAKAR 4153/2021 01/06/2009 01/06/2014 57.
NARAYAN SAMBHAJI SHINDE ST.
12644/2021 11/12/2008 11/12/2014 58.
VISHWAS PANDURANG CHUGULE 4121/2021 10/06/2012 10/06/2017 59.
VILAS PANDURANG MOHITE ST.
12648/2021 14/01/2006 14/01/2011 60.
SURESH RAMCHANDRA AMANE 4143/2021 21/02/2005 21/02/2010 61.
JAYRAM APPA CHIMANE 4132/2021 30/03/1999 30/03/2004 62.
RAMCHANDRA DNYANDEV SHIPURE 3960/2021 21/02/2005 21/02/2010 63.
UMAJI RAMCHANDRA ULAPE 4131/2021 07/04/2008 07/04/2013 64.
SHIVAJI GANPATI HUJURE 3955/2021 07/08/2007 07/08/2012 65.
VISHNU GANGARAM DHONUKSHE 4154/2021 31/05/2010 31/05/2015 66.
MARUTI ANANTA KUDALE 3965/2021 21/02/2005 21/02/2010 67.
PRAKASH SHRIPATI PATIL 4148/2021 04/04/2009 04/04/2014 68.
PRAKASH SADASHIV LAMBE 3966/2021 31/05/2012 31/05/2017 69.
ANANT MARUTI WALWEKAR 4126/2021 16/06/2006 16/06/2011 70.
ASHOK JAMBU WARDHMANE 3922/2021 21/02/2005 21/02/2010 71.
SATURAM APPA PATIL ST.
12902/2021 10/02/2010 10/02/2015 72.
DHONDIRAM HINDURAO PATIL 3932/2021 31/05/2006 31/05/2011 73.
INDUBAI BAPUSO JADHAV 3933/2021 25/06/2004 25/06/2009
74.
CHARUDATTA SHIRIRANG PAILWAN 3934/2021 30/05/2002 30/05/2007 75.
SHRIPATI LAXMAN KALAMKAR ST.
13056/2021 09/06/2008 09/06/2013 76.
VITTHAL DATTARAY JADHAV ST.
13057/2021 09/07/2015 09/07/2020 77.
BHAGWAN GANPATI PATIL 4134/2021 31/05/2006 31/05/2011 78.
PANDURANG SHANKAR SHINDE 3917/2021 21/02/2005 21/02/2010 79.
TANAJI PRATAPRAO MANE 3926/2021 31/05/2012 31/05/2017 80.
SATTAPPA ALIAS SATISH RAMCHANDRA BACHANKAR 3949/2021 31/07/2010 31/07/2015 - - 81.
SUBHASH BANDU AADAKE ST.
11976/2021 18/10/2001 18/10/2006 - - 82.
BAPU SAYYAD BAHURUPI ST.
11979/2021 09/06/2010 09/06/2015 - - 83.
VILAS BALWANT GURAV ST.
11981/2021 21/02/2005 21/02/2010 84.
RAMCHANDRA DAULAT MALAVI 3945/2021 13/10/2005 13/10/2010 85.
MOHAN RAWAJI SURYAWANSHI 3956/2021 15/04/2008 15/04/2013 86.
ASHOK GANAPATI GHORPADE 3957/2021 21/02/2005 21/02/2010 87.
ANIL RAMRAO GAIKWAD 3967/2021 04/01/2010 04/01/2015 88.
ANIL RAMCHANDRA GHORPADE 3950/2021 13/12/2005 13/12/2010 89.
PRABHAWATI PRAKASH DESAI W.P.NO. 3913 OF 2021 15/06/2012 15/06/2017 13/12/2016 90.
RAJARAM YESHWANT JADHAV W.P.NO. 3915 OF 2021 25/01/2006 25/01/2011 21/07/2018 91.
KRUSHNA BAAPUSO JADHAV W.P.ST.NO.
31/05/2006 31/05/2011 21/07/2018 W.P.NO. 3916 OF 2021 31/05/2004 31/05/2009 21/07/2018 92.
PANDURANG DATTU MORBALE 93.
KERABA BAPURAO JAMBHALE & ORS.
W.P.NO. 4366 OF 2021 01/06/2013 01/06/2018 30/07/2018 94.
SARJERAO TUKARAM WADKAR W.P.NO. 3911 OF 2021 08/05/2003 08/05/2008 - 95.
NAJIR APPALAL MULLA W.P.NO. 3912 OF 2021 31/05/2012 31/05/2017 29/09/2016 - 96.
BALIRAM YESHWANT SHINDE W.P.ST.NO.
8217 OF 2021 21/02/2005 21/02/2010 24/10/2016 - 97.
RAMCHANDRA ARJUN MANE W.P.NO. 3914 OF 2021 11/02/2003 11/02/2008 26/04/2017 - W.P.ST. NO.
11878 OF 98.
DADASO DATTOBA SATHE 31/05/2007 31/05/2012 -
99.
DHONDIRAM DNYNU PATIL W.P.NO. 3927 OF 2021 07/04/2010 07/04/2015 - 100.
RATNAMALA SHANKAR CHOUDHARI W.P.NO 3973 OF 2021 10/12/2012 10/12/2017 - 101.
SUSHILA VASANTRAO PATIL W.P. NO. 3936 OF 2021 03/05/2008 03/05/2013 07/07/2017 - 102.
AJIT ABASO PATIL W.P. NO. 3937 OF 2021 31/03/2014 31/03/2019 - 103.
HAIBATI GANPATI RAMOSHI W.P.NO. 3935 OF 2021 03/03/2004 03/03/2009 30/06/2017 - 104.
PANDURANG BALKU SHINDE W.P.NO. 3938 OF 2021 31/05/2006 31/05/2011 07/07/2017 - 105.
BALASO TUKARAM PATIL W.P.ST.NO.118 05/07/2007 05/07/2012 - 106.
NAMDEV MAHIPATI DESAI W.P. 3943 OF 30/04/2006 30/04/2011 - 107.
RAJARAM DADASO KOTHAWALE W.P.NO. 3940 OF 2021 19/04/2009 19/04/2014 26/12/2015 -- 108.
MANSUR BADSHAHA SANADI W.P.NO. 3944 OF 2021 18/05/2011 18/05/2016 30/06/2017 - 109.
DHULAPPA RAMCHANDRA KHOLAPE W.P.NO. 4003 OF 2021 06/01/2014 06/01/2019 07/07/2017 - 110.
BANUBAI PANDURANG SAWANT W.P.NO. 3942 OF 2021 02/06/2010 02/06/2015 07/07/2016 - 111.
BABASO PARSHURAM PATIL W.P. NO. 3941 OF 2021 31/05/2006 31/05/2011 - 112.
NANDKUMAR VITTHAL GAWANKAR W.P.ST.NO.119 28/11/2011 28/11/2016 - 113.
W.P. ST.NO.
11902 OF SADASHIV RAMCHANDRA CHAUDHARI 21/02/2005 21/02/2010 - 114.
W.P.ST.NO.
11903 OF KRUSHNA SHANKAR MALKAR 18/08/2004 18/08/2009 - 115.
TAJUDDIN ABDUL MANER W.P. NO. 3925 OF 2021 01/10/2011 01/10/2016 - 116.
ASHOK DUNDAPPA SHINTRE W.P.ST.NO.119 31/05/2012 31/05/2017 12/05/2016 - 117.
SHIVAJI RAMU DESAI W.P.NO. 3924 OF 2021 31/05/2008 31/05/2013 -
118.
GUNDU RAVAJI BHUEMBAR W.P.NO. 3931 OF 2021 31/05/2005 31/05/2010 - 119.
W.P.ST.NO.
11909 OF FATTESINGH DATTARAY CHAVAN 21/02/2005 21/02/2010 - 120.
ANANDA SHRIPATI CHOUGULE W.P. NO.3929 OF 2021 21/02/2005 21/02/2010 - 121.
W.P.ST.NO.
11911 OF JAYSING SADU SHENDAGE 21/02/2005 21/02/2010 30/06/2017 - 122.
BHAIRU RAMCHANDRA NAIK W.P.NO.3920 OF 2021 21/02/2005 21/02/2010 - 123.
W.P.ST.NO.
11914 OF DATTU RAWAJI PATIL 06/12/2004 06/12/2009 - 124.
PRAKASH BABASO SHINDE W.P.NO.3928 OF 2021 13/11/2013 13/11/2018 - 125.
RAJARAM GOVIND KAMBLE W.P.NO. 3995 OF 2021 01/02/2008 01/02/2013 - 126.
SURYKANT PANDURANG NIMBALKAR W.P.NO. 3919 OF 2021 14/05/2013 14/05/2018 - 127.
BALASO RAMCHANDRA JADHAV W.P.NO.3918 OF 2021 01/06/2011 01/06/2016 - 128.
BABASAHEB SADASHIV PATIL W.P.NO.4004 OF 2021 18/05/2011 18/05/2016 - 129.
MADHAVRAO KRUSHNRAO KATKAR W.P.NO.3948 OF 2021 28/11/2009 28/11/2014 - 130.
GANAPATI RAMCHANDRA GHATGE W.P.NO.4005 OF 2021 31/05/2013 31/05/2018 12/05/2016 - 131.
W.P.ST.NO.
11967 OF SHAMRAO KRUSHNAJI PATIL 20/12/2005 20/12/2010 - 132.
DHONDIRAM BABU HALWANKAR W.P.NO. 3947 OF 2021 30/04/2008 30/04/2013 - 133.
SHAMRAO ANNASAHEB SARNOBAT W.P.NO.3958 OF 2021 21/02/2005 21/02/2010 - 134.
ANNASO NAMDEV PATIL W.P.NO. 3946 OF 2021 21/02/2005 21/02/2010 - 135.
RANGRAO TUKARAM PATIL W.P.ST.NO.119 01/06/2009 01/06/2014 - 136.
MAKBUL SIKANDAR ROHILE W.P.ST.11983 OF 2021 12/05/2006 12/05/2011 -
137.
BAJIRAO VITHTHAL PATIL W.P.NO.3939 OF 2021 31/05/2009 31/05/2014 - 138.
MASJID YUNUS MULLA W.P.ST.NO.119 30/04/2006 30/04/2011 139.
RAMCHANDRA BABURAO MALI 1635 OF 2021 30/04/2011 30/04/2016 29/12/2016 9.
A glance at this chart would reveal the date of retirement of the employees on attaining 55 years of age as per the 'Nokarnama'. In majority of the cases, the employees approached the Conciliation Ofcer, for the first time after they had completed 60 years of age (retirement age as per Model Standing Orders). Further, these employees approached the Conciliation Ofcer with their grievance belatedly, between the period of 5 to 19 years since the date of their retirement at the age of 55 years.
10.
In respect of employees at Serial Nos.5, 6, 12, 16, 26, 35, 50, 53, 58, 76, 89, 95, 100, 102, 109, 116, 124 and 130, these employees approached the Conciliation Ofcer between the period from 2 to 5 years from the date of their retirement as per the 'Nokarnama' at the age of 55 years.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL MR. PAKALE AND MR. VAIDYA FOR THE PETITIONER - EMPLOYER 11.
Assailing the order of the Labour Court, it is contended that the reference sufered from delay and laches. The Labour Court committed an error in entertaining a stale claim. In most of the cases, though the employees stood retired upon attaining the age of 55 years as per the 'Nokarnama', however, they approached the Conciliation Ofcer only after they attained the age of 60 years (age of retirement as per the Model Standing Orders). The employees stood retired as per 'Nokarnama' at the age of 55 years, and admittedly, the employees accepted the retiral benefits without murmur or protest and therefore the 'employer and employee' relationship came to an end. The dispute had to be live on the date of the reference. It is only a live dispute on the date of reference which can be referred for adjudication.
The 'employer-employee' relationship no more was in existence. The employees are fence-sitters who approached the Conciliation Ofcer with a demand only after another set of employees succeeded before the Labour Court. The Labour Court is in error in proceeding on the footing that the decision in respect of another set of employees who had succeeded is a judgment in rem.
conduct waived their right to claim any relief and virtually acquiesced to the action taken by the employer. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others1 and Prabhakar vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and another2.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS:- 12.
Learned counsel for the respondents - employees invited my attention to the findings of the Labour Court to contend that the well considered order of the Labour Court does not call for any interference. It is submitted that the Labour Court was right in holding that the action of retiring the employees on the basis of the 'Nokarnama' is illegal, being contrary to the provisions of the Model Standing Orders and hence, the dispute is rightly regarded as a live one on the date of reference. The Model Standing Orders prevail over the 'Nokarnama'. The reduction of age of retirement from 60 years to 55 years does not have a sanction of law. The Union, of which present employees are members, while representing another set of employees, succeeded in establishing that the age of retirement has to be in (2015) 1 SCC 347 (2015) 15 SCC 1
consonance with the Model Standing Orders and consequently the Labour Court declared the action of the employer in retiring the employees at a lesser age as illegal. Once the very genesis of the dispute viz. action of reducing the age of retirement is declared illegal, though in a diferent proceeding, the employer on his own ought to have extended the benefit thereof to these employees as well. According to him, a reference under Section 10 of the said Act can be filed at any time and a mere delay in approaching the Labour Court can never be to the detriment of the employees. The Labour Court has, in lieu of reinstatement, granted compensation by moulding the relief. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Director, Food and Supplies, Punjab and another vs.
Gurmit Singh3 to contend that the Tribunal or the Labour Court cannot invalidate the reference on the ground of delay. Further, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mahavir Singh vs. U.P. State Electricity Board and others4 to contend that once the termination is held to be illegal, the entire reference cannot be rejected. If a belated claim is made, the relief of backwages can appropriately be moulded.
13.
Heard learned counsel. Perused the Petitions, Exhibits and the impugned orders.
14.
On the basis of the 'Nokarnama', the employees stood retired at the age of 55 years. The Model Standing Orders provide for the age of retirement as 60 years. The employees admittedly accepted all the retirement benefits without murmur or protest. This group concerns two set of employees. As indicated earlier, the first set is in respect of those employees who have raised the demand after they attained the age of 60 years and almost after 5 to 19 years of their retirement. So far as the second set of employees is concerned, these employees have raised the demand post 2 years or more after their retirement at the age of 55 years but before attaining the age of 60 years as per the Model Standing Orders.
15.
The contention of the employer is that having accepted the retiral dues, the employees acquiesced to the factum of retirement and consequently waived their right to contend that the retirement amounts to otherwise dismissal being contrary to the Model Standing Orders. According to the employer, the live link of 'employer-employee' relationship has snapped and hence there is no question of 'employer-employee' relationship in
existence giving a cause for raising a dispute. The delay and laches in raising the demand only strengthens the employer's case that there is no live link of 'employer-employee' relationship, is the submission of learned counsel. 16.
The Labour Court referred to paragraph 20 of the statement of claim to consider whether the reference is barred by law of limitation or not. The employees explained delay and laches in paragraph 20 of the statement of claim. The afdavit of examination-in-chief reiterates the contention in paragraph 20 of the statement of claim. The Labour Court recorded that the employee admitted in cross examination that the dispute was raised in the beginning of the year, 2016. The employee admitted that it was towards the end of the year 2015, that he came to know about the other workers succeeding in their complaints filed against the employer. The employee denied that he was waiting for the result of the complaints by other workers.
The employee further admitted that from the date of retirement till raising of present dispute, no complaint was made about the illegal termination. It is further admitted that the employee had received and accepted the post retiral benefits.
approached the higher authorities of the employer. The Labour Court observed that the admission given by the employee in his cross examination clearly shows that the employee did not complain to the employer about the illegal termination till raising of the industrial dispute. The Labour Court observed that the employee has not examined any independent witness or coworker to show that he has been requesting the employer time and again for settlement of dispute but employer did not pay attention to the request made by the employee. Having observed thus, the Labour Court, however, formed an opinion that it was the duty of the employer to reply the letter of the second party and settle the dispute amicably. 17.
In paragraph 33 the Labour Court held that considering the admissions given in the cross examination and evidence on record, the employee was not successful in proving the contents of statement of claim as regards the explanation about delay and laches in raising the industrial dispute. Nonetheless, the Labour Court proceeded to hold that even if the employee was not successful in establishing the case made out in the statement of claim so far as delay and laches are concerned, the issue of delay and laches can be considered from a diferent angle in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, having regard to
the provisions of Section 10 of the said Act. 18.
The Labour Court then in paragraph 35 considers the question whether the dispute was a live one when the same was referred to the Court. While interpreting the words "at any time" occurring in Section 10 of the said Act, the Labour Court relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Prabhakar's case (supra) to observe that the real test is the existence of a dispute on the date of reference for adjudication. The Labour Court in the present facts was of the opinion that the dispute was alive when the decision was taken to refer the matter for adjudication. It is observed that the dispute before the Conciliation Ofcer was in respect of terms of employment and termination of employment. While holding the dispute to be a live one, the Labour Court relied on two factors.
The first one is that the retirement was contrary to the Model Standing Orders and that the statutory provisions will prevail over any administrative order (Nokarnama) of the employer. Secondly, the Labour Court holds that though a demand was raised by the employee, the employer has merely raised the defence that the employee has no right whatsoever and that he is legally retired.
the Model Standing Orders is illegal and hence this being the term of employment, the dispute is very much in existence on the date of reference, consequently, delay and laches will not come in the way of the employees seeking relief. Thus, though the Labour Court held the explanation for delay and laches ofered by the employees is not satisfactory, but, nonetheless came to the conclusion that the dispute being in existence, the reference does not sufer from delay and laches. It would be material to reproduce paragraphs 38, 39 and 40 of the reasoning of the Labour Court which read thus :
"38.
Facts emerges from the case before me that, second party raised dispute for illegal termination from the service in view of the Nokarnama. First Party has admitted that Model Standing Orders are applicable to the First Party Sangh. In such circumstances, statutory provisions will prevail over any administrative order of First Party. First Party has not produced any documentary evidence to show that the resolution to reduce the age of employee was not in contravention of provisions of Model Standing Orders. First Party has not even shown as to how the resolution to reduce the age of retirement was legal. Inspite of specific demand before conciliation ofcer for reinstatement, First Party has merely said that Second Party had no right of job and he is legally retired from the job.
It is pertinent to note that when present dispute was raised, first party was well aware of the fact that upto Hon'ble Supreme Court, first party was not succeeded in proving their defence in other cases of retiring the employees by reducing their age was concurrently held to be illegal by various Courts of Law. Instead of obeying the court order, first party preferred to not to settle the dispute. The said fact in my opinion shows that dispute was not settled and same was alive.
39.
First Party was well aware of the Judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court which is decided against them on the same issue involved in the present reference. In writ petition No.8060/2006 between Shetkari Sahakari Sangh Ltd Vs. Kolhapur zilla Sahakari Nokar Union, it was observed that "Both, the Labour Court and the Industrial Court in my view, have cogent reasons allowed the complaints. Both the courts below held that the Model Standing Orders apply to the workman and the age of retirement
could not have been reduced to 58 years." It is fact that in other cases filed under the provisions of MRTU and PULP Act, Labour Court and Hon'ble Industrial Court has held that First Party has engaged in unfair labour practice by reducing the age of employees in contravention of Model Standing Orders. First Party is also aware of the Judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 5081 of 2015 wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court that "The petitioner had thereafter approached this court against the order by filing Writ Petition No.8060 of 2006. The Writ Petition was dismissed by reasoned order dt. 21st August 2007.
Further in Para-4 of the said writ petition Hon'ble Bombay High Court was disappointed on the conduct of the First Party Sangh who was petitioner in the above writ petition and it was observed that "In that circumstances, it was in-fact necessary for the petitioner to accept the order and reinstate the employees in service with full back wages. Instead of taking corrective action, the petitioner not only challenged the order before Industrial court but has carried it further to this court. The petitioner is therefore not entitled to be heard in the matter and it's petition is liable to be dismissed with costs for unnecessarily dragging the respondents to the court". 40.
From the above facts and conduct of First Party now it can be said that this is the third time, whereupon First Party has reduced the age of Second Party in contravention of Model Standing Orders and inspite of obeying the orders and judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court preferred to not to settle the industrial dispute. Therefore, in my opinion, for the obvious reason as above mentioned the argument of the First Party that the dispute was not alive has to be discarded as the same being devoid of merits. It is the First Party who was responsible and who had disturbed industrial harmony by not obeying the orders of Hon'ble Higher Court. Had the First Party settled the dispute by giving reinstatement by following the provisions of Model Standing Orders, question of industrial dispute would not have taken place." (emphasis supplied by me) 19.
The findings reveal that the Labour Court took into consideration the decisions of the Court in respect of another set of employees who approached the Labour Court by filing a complaint of unfair labour practice under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labor Laws Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'MRTU and PULP Act' for short).
20.
Admittedly, after the employer retired the employees at the age of 55 years, the retiral benefits were paid to the employees which came to be accepted without murmur or protest. There is a delay of 2 years to 19 years, as the chart containing details of individual employees would indicate, in approaching the Conciliation Ofcer. The Labour Court's approach in arriving at the conclusion that the dispute is alive and has not become stale, only because similarly situate employees had succeeded in their challenge before the Labour Court does not appear to be correct. The approach appears to be that as the other set of employees succeeded, the decision of the Court has to be regarded as a judgment in rem and hence the employer should have settled the dispute by giving reinstatement in view of the provisions of the Model Standing Orders.
In the case of Prabhakar, it has been held that although there is no limitation prescribed under the Act for making a reference under Section 10(1) of the ID Act, yet it is for the "appropriate Government" to consider whether it is expedient or not to make the reference. The words "at any time" used in Section 10(1) do not admit of any limitation in making an order of reference and laws of limitation are not applicable to proceedings under the ID Act.
allowed inasmuch as unless there is satisfactory explanation for delay as, apart from the obvious risk to industrial peace from the entertainment of claims after long lapse of time, it is necessary also to take into account the unsettling efect which it is likely to have on the employers' financial arrangement and to avoid dislocation of an industry. In paragraph 28 Their Lordships observed thus :
"28.
The aforesaid case law depicts the following : 28.1 The law of limitation does not apply to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
28.2.
The words "at any time" used in Section 10 would support that there is no period of limitation in making an order of reference. 28.3.
At the same time, the appropriate Government has to keep in mind as to whether the dispute is still existing or live dispute and has not become a stale claim and if that is so, the reference can be refused.
28.4.
Whether dispute is alive or it has become stale / non-existent at the time when the workman approaches the appropriate Government is an aspect which would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be any hard-and-fast rule regarding the time for making the order of reference." 21.
Further in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others (supra), the Apex Court summed up the legal principles as regards entitlement of benefit of judgment in rem with intention to benefit all similarly situated persons irrespective of whether they had approached Court or not. In paragraph 22, the legal principles are summed up as under :
"22.1 The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service
matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated diferently.
22.2. However, this principle is subject to well-recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their eforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma v. Union of India). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not sufer from either laches and delays or acquiescence."
(emphasis supplied by me) 22.
Their Lordships held that the principle of extending these benefits given by the Court to similarly situate employees needs to be applied more emphatically in service matters. The principle is subject to well recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays and acquiescence. However, the exception may not apply where the judgment pronounced by the Court is a judgment in
rem with intention to give benefit to similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. It is to be kept in mind that the decision in State of Uttar Pradesh and others is in the context of service jurisprudence contending violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. No doubt we are concerned with the delay and laches in the context of Labour Legislation. Let me test the order of the Labour Court in the light of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others. The relevant portion of the Labour Court's order in Clause 6 of paragraph 44 reads thus :- "It is pertinent to note that initially Kolhapur Zhilla Sahakari Nokar Union filed complaints against the First Party alleging unfair labour practice.
Labour Court decided the complaints against the First Party and directed to reinstate the members of union with back wages. First Party therefore preferred the petition No. 5081 of 2015 against the union. The said union is recognized union in the First Party. Therefore, it is obvious that the judgment of Hon'ble High Court is applicable to all the members of the union even though they have not approached the court. I am of the considered view that, after the pronouncement of judgment by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, and Hon'ble Supreme Court, First party ought to have extended the benefits to all similarly situated persons like Second Party workman in the present reference.
Also first party has not shown to me, how the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court where the Recognized union was made party to the petition, can be termed as judgment in personam instead of judgment in rem." 23.
According to the Labour Court, in view of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 8060 of 2006 and Writ Petition No. 5081 of 2015 as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the employer ought to have extended the benefits to all similarly situated persons like present employees as well. The Labour
Court has observed that the employer has to show how the judgment of this Court where the recognized union was made party to the petition, can be termed as judgment in personam instead of judgment in rem. This approach of the Labour Court is erroneous. In my opinion, it was for the employees to have established that the decision of the Court in respect of similarly situated employees is a judgment in rem, for it is the case of the employees before the Labour Court that as similarly situated employees have succeeded in complaints of unfair labour practice before the Labour Court, the benefits of said decision should be extended to the present employees as well. The Labour Court has not at all referred to the order passed by the Labour Court in the Complaint (ULP) No. 31 of 2005 and Complaint (ULP) No.
87 and 100 of 1999 filed by the similarly situated employees under Item 1 of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act while arriving at a conclusion that the decision of the Court is in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. Reference is only made to the decision of this Court. In the afdavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the employees, the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 8060 of 2006 and Writ Petition No. 5081 of 2015 is enclosed. The decision in Writ Petition No.
Labour Court under Item 1 of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act contending that they were entitled to continue in employment till the age of 60 years as that was the age of retirement under the Model Standing Orders which govern their service conditions. This Court held that the workmen concerned were entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years. The order in Writ Petition No.8060 of 2006 was passed by this Court as far back as on 21st August, 2007. While referring to the decision in Writ Petition No. 5081 of 2015, the Labour Court observed that as the said union which filed the complaint is recognized union of the employer, therefore, it is obvious that the judgment of this Court is applicable to all the members of the union even though they have not approached the court.
A reading of the order passed by this Court on 31st August, 2015 in Writ Petition No. 5081 of 2015 reveals that respondent No.1 union had filed complaint (ULP) No. 31 of 2005 challenging illegal termination of service of 13 workmen including respondent Nos. 3 to 8 alleging that the employer had engaged in unfair labour practices in reducing the age of retirement of the employees to 55 years, despite the provision of age of retirement as 60 years in the Model Standing Orders applicable to the employer.
workmen and directed the employer to reinstate the employees and continue them until their age of retirement of 60 years and pay 50% of the back-wages. In the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5081 of 2015, on which reliance is placed by the Labour Court, there is nothing to indicate that the judgment pronounced by this Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. The Labour Court, in my opinion, only on the basis of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5081 of 2015 was not justified in coming to a conclusion that the judgment pronounced by this Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons. As the learned Judge has not adverted to the orders passed by the Labour Court while concluding that the benefit of the judgment will have to be extended to all employees, as is the obligation cast on the employer in such eventuality, it will be appropriate for the Labour Court to reconsider the issue based on the materials on record.
24.
As held by Their Lordships in State of Uttar Pradesh and others (supra) that "if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated
expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not sufer from either laches and delays or acquiescence". I am therefore of the opinion that the Labour Court was not justified in putting the burden on the employer to show how the judgment of this Court relied by the employees can be termed as 'judgment in personam' instead of 'judgment in rem'. The Labour Court, in my opinion, should have applied the tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court indicated hereinbefore in arriving at a finding that the judgment of the Court is in rem.
Secondly, the Labour Court erred in holding that the dispute is alive only on the basis of a set of employees having succeeded in establishing the decision to reduce retirement age is illegal, resultantly forming an erroneous opinion that the employer is obliged to comply with the order in respect of all employees whether they approached the Court or not. Thirdly, the Labour Court was in error in placing the burden on the employer to establish that the judgment is in personam. Even if the judgment is in personam, the Apex Court has laid down that those who want to get the benefit of the judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that the Petition does not sufer from delay and laches.
that a detailed scrutiny by the Labour Court after considering the orders passed by the Labour Court, Industrial Court and this Court in respect of another set of employees is necessitated for deciding the question as to whether the decisions rendered in respect of diferent set of employees is a judgment in rem or in personam and the consequence thereon of delay and laches. 25.
As held by the Apex Court in Prabhakar's case, although there is no limitation prescribed under the Act for making a reference under Section 10(1) of the ID Act, yet it is for the "appropriate Government" to consider whether it is expedient or not to make the reference. The appropriate Government has to keep in mind as to whether the dispute is still existing or live dispute and has not become a stale claim and if that is so, the reference can be refused. This would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be any hard-andfast rule regarding the time for making the order of reference. The matter therefore requires reconsideration in the light of the principles enunciated by the Apex Court. The Petitions therefore succeed.
26.
Though learned counsel for the parties have advanced arguments on all aspects of the case, it is made clear that I have
addressed only the issues discussed above and all contentions are kept open.
27.
The Writ Petitions succeed and are accordingly allowed. 28.
The impugned orders of the First Labour Court are quashed and set aside. The matters are remitted back to the Labour Court for a fresh decision.
29.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.
(M.S. KARNIK, J.)