Eps 95 National Agitation Committee, Buldhana Thr. Ashok Purnaji Tembhare v. The Union Of India, Thr. Secretary, Ministry Of Labor And Employment, New Delhi And ORS.

(1) 2wp1646.25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1646/2025 EPS 95 National Agitation Committee, Affiliated to (EPS95) Karmachari & Nivrutta Karmachari Samanvaya & Lok Kalyan Sanstha, Buldhana .Vs. Union of India and ors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. K. Dange, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. C. J. Dhumane, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. H. N. Verma, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 6. CORAM :

ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.

DATE :

JANUARY 22, 2026.

We have heard the parties on maintainability of the petition. Argument of respondent Nos.2 to 6 is that the petition has been field by National Agitation Committee ("NAC"), claiming it to be affiliated to Karmachari and Nivrutta Karmachari Samanvaya and Lok Kalyan Sanstha, Buldhana ("Trust"). However, the petitioner commenced the pleadings in paragraph 1, describing it as Charitable Trust.

2.

We made inquiry with counsel appearing for the petitioner, to which the counsel submits that NAC is the Trust. When further inquired as to whether the Trust has authorized the NAC to file present petition, learned counsel submits that the Trust has passed resolution to that effect. Upon further inquiry, it is revealed that the resolution is not passed by the Trust but is a resolution of the NAC. 3.

Thereafter, counsel appearing for respondents, pointed out several discrepancies in the petition, like in first paragraph number of affected employees is said to be 78,49,338. However, the Membership list has been not communicated nor is there any document showing that any one out of these members has signed the petition or authorized the petitioner to lodge the petition. Another is that the petitioner has described respondent No.7 as MSEB Holding

(2) 2wp1646.25 Company Limited at one place and as MSEB CPF Trust as another and as employer in paragraph 11.

4.

At this stage, counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to avail appropriate remedy as is available in law.

5.

Permission is granted.

6.

The writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

(JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kahale