Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd. Thr. Chairman v. Sudhir Pandurang Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 926 OF 2026 Sagar Appaso Chavan WRIT PETITION NO. 474 OF 2026 Vandana Sunil Patil WRIT PETITION NO. 932 OF 2026 Swami Ramanand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd Thr Chairman Vijay Baurao Dyal WRIT PETITION NO. 646 OF 2026 Mahadev Shrirang Shinde WRIT PETITION NO. 855 OF 2026 Swami Ramanand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd Thr Chairman Deepak Bhagwan Patil 1 of
WRIT PETITION NO. 662 OF 2026 Yogesh Kisan Babar WRIT PETITION NO. 465 OF 2026 Mohan Hambira Ghatugade WRIT PETITION NO. 13204 OF 2025 Fakkadrao Bhagwan Shinde WRIT PETITION NO. 13205 OF 2025 Swami Ramanand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd. Vinayak Pralhad Chavhan WRIT PETITION NO. 929 OF 2026 Sukhdev Manikrao Lugade 2 of
WRIT PETITION NO. 12739 OF 2025 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd. Annaso Jagnnath Patil WRIT PETITION NO. 468 OF 2026 Tukaram Balaso Kadam WRIT PETITION NO. 464 OF 2026 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd Avinash Kisan Sutar WRIT PETITION NO. 467 OF 2026 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd Pravin Ramchandra Lohar WRIT PETITION NO. 875 OF 2026 Rajaram Shankar Patil 3 of
WRIT PETITION NO. 657 OF 2026 Pradip Ramchandra Mohite WRIT PETITION NO. 869 OF 2026 Daulat Pundlik Landge WRIT PETITION NO. 791 OF 2026 Sudhir Pandurang Patil WRIT PETITION NO. 789 OF 2026 Vijay Janardhan Pawar WRIT PETITION NO. 931 OF 2026 Ramchandra Cyanoba Kadam WRIT PETITION NO. 872 OF 2026 Pradip Vitthal Patil 4 of
WRIT PETITION NO. 12186 OF 2025 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd Bharat Bhau Patil WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO. 29384 OF 2025 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd, Tasgaon Thr. Chairman Sanjay Laxman Lugade WRIT PETITION NO. 745 OF 2026 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd Bhausaheb A. Khade WRIT PETITION NO. 12185 OF 2025 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd Rahul Chandrakant Kokne WRIT PETITION NO. 11679 OF 2025 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd. Anil Hari Misal 5 of
WRIT PETITION NO. 471 OF 2026 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd. Gajanan Shahaji Pawar WRIT PETITION NO. 316 OF 2026 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd Arun Vasant Chavhan WRIT PETITION NO. 209 OF 2026 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd Vinod Jagnnath Patil WRIT PETITION NO. 301 OF 2026 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd Pooja Sanjay Patil WRIT PETITION NO. 277 OF 2026 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd Dipak Keshav Jadhav WRIT PETITION NO. 930 OF 2026 Sharad Shivling Swami 6 of
WRIT PETITION NO. 271 OF 2026 Nagesh Yashwant Gurav WRIT PETITION NO. 580 OF 2026 Ganpatrao Ramrao Kharade WRIT PETITION NO. 698 OF 2026 Baburao Prahlad Rupnar WRIT PETITION NO. 581 OF 2026 Manik Sadashiv Patil WRIT PETITION NO. 699 OF 2026 Dattatray Bapuso Pawar 7 of
WRIT PETITION NO. 582 OF 2026 Swami Ramamnand Bharati Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd. Thr. Chairman Macchindra Nanaso Pawar WRIT PETITION NO. 12143 OF 2025 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd, Tasgaon Thr. Chairman Prakash Vitthal Patil WRIT PETITION NO. 12180 OF 2025 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd, Tasgaon Thr. Chairman Hari Shrirang Gurav WRIT PETITION NO. 12077 OF 2025 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd. Rahul Balaso Patil WRIT PETITION NO. 12385 OF 2025 Shankar Kisan Patil 8 of
WRIT PETITION NO. 12384 OF 2025 Ganpati Daulati Patil WRIT PETITION NO. 245 OF 2026 Manoj Ramchandra Shinde WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO. 31405 OF 2025 Vilas Bapu Patil WRIT PETITION NO. 12144 OF 2025 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd Shashikant Balasaheb Inganale WRIT PETITION NO. 11705 OF 2025 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd, Tasgaon Thr. Chairman Adinath Shripal Shirote 9 of
WRIT PETITION NO. 12178 OF 2025 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd, Tasgaon Thr. Chairman Dattatray Limbaji Dhanvade WRIT PETITION NO. 12183 OF 2025 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd, Tasgaon Thr. Chairman Haribhau Manohar Patil WRIT PETITION NO. 12147 OF 2025 Umesh Gunvant Patil WRIT PETITION NO. 12176 OF 2025 Appaso Namdev Kadam WRIT PETITION NO. 466 OF 2026 Thr. Chairman Sachin Bapurao Lohar
WRIT PETITION NO. 274 OF 2026 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd. Sandip Sambhaji Mali WRIT PETITION NO. 12182 OF 2025 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd Subhash Shamrao Patil WRIT PETITION NO. 11763 OF 2025 Sanchit Mahadev Patil WRIT PETITION NO. 12738 OF 2025 Pravin Gaurihar Shete WRIT PETITION NO. 873 OF 2026 Amol Barasu Jayappa WRIT PETITION NO. 12083 OF 2025 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd. Hanmant Subhash Wagh
WRIT PETITION NO. 12078 OF 2025 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd. Sachin Shivaji Kamble WRIT PETITION NO. 12085 OF 2025 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd. Sunil Shanka Gurav WRIT PETITION NO. 12086 OF 2025 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd. Gautam Dadaso Patil WRIT PETITION NO. 12082 OF 2025 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd. Balaso Pandurang Suryawanshi WRIT PETITION NO. 12081 OF 2025 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd. Vikram Vishnu Shinde
WRIT PETITION NO. 12149 OF 2025 Anil Sambhaji Salunkhe WRIT PETITION NO. 12141 OF 2025 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd. Amol Hari Pawar WRIT PETITION NO. 12179 OF 2025 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd. Swapnil Chandrakant Pawar WRIT PETITION NO. 12146 OF 2025 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd. Avinash Sadashiv Shinde WRIT PETITION NO. 12145 OF 2025 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd. Siddheshwar Bapu Borgaonkar
WRIT PETITION NO. 12150 OF 2025 Swami Ramanand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd. Pralhad Vitthal Patil WRIT PETITION NO. 12142 OF 2025 Swami Ramanand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd. Yuvraj Shankar Desai WRIT PETITION NO. 12181 OF 2025 Swami Ramanand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd., Thr. Its Chairman Suresh Bajirao Patil WRIT PETITION NO. 12148 OF 2025 Swami Ramanand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd. Prakash Mahadev Surywanshi WRIT PETITION NO. 12736 OF 2025 Anandrao Bhimrao Kalekar
WRIT PETITION NO. 12737 OF 2025 Bajirao Ramchandra Desai WRIT PETITION NO. 238 OF 2026 Sunanda Sunil Shinde WRIT PETITION NO. 463 OF 2026 Sandip Shankar Todkar WRIT PETITION NO. 309 OF 2026 Siddhnath Raghunath Mohite WRIT PETITION NO. 472 OF 2026 Manoj Krushna Babar
WRIT PETITION NO. 469 OF 2026 Swami Ramamnand Bharti Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd Laxman Pralhad Gurav Ms. Simran Sameena a/w Ms. Ketaki S. i/by Mr. Sanadiip Mutaalik for the Petitioner.
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 4th MAY, 2026 P. C. :
1.
This batch of Writ Petitions, the Petitioner-Employer challenges various judgments and orders passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Sangli, in a complaints presented by the respective Respondents/employees. While these orders were passed on different dates in early 2025, the proceedings arise from a common set of facts and involve identical questions of law, as such are taken together.
2.
By the impugned orders, the Industrial Court allowed the complaints presented by the Respondent-Employees, holding the Petitioner had engaged in unfair labour practices under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ("the MRTU & PULP Act") and directed the Petitioner to pay the differential amount
between the wages actually paid and the prescribed minimum wages, with a default stipulation of interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
3.
The Petitioner is a Cooperative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and is engaged in the business of manufacturing cotton yarn and spinning. The Respondent-Employees were engaged as laborers by the Petitioner industry as far back as 2006. It is the case of the Respondents that they have rendered unblemished service for nearly two decades, initially starting on a meager wage of Rs. 30/- per day. While their wages were periodically increased over the years, at the time of approaching the Industrial Court, they were being paid daily wages of only Rs. 240/-.
4.
The Respondents/employees contended that this payment was not in conformity with the prescribed minimum wages applicable to the textile and spinning industry. They further asserted that even after completing 240 days of continuous service and the Petitioner being an "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, were deprived of statutory benefits, safety measures, and the status of permanency.
5.
Aggrieved by this persistent deprivation of legal dues, the Respondents presented complaint under Section 28 read with Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The Industrial Court, vide the impugned order, upheld their claim regarding the difference in minimum wages and directed the Petitioner to pay the arrears. Aggrieved by this direction and the finding of unfair labour practice, the Petitioner is before this Court. 6.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Industrial Court committed a grave error in passing the impugned order without appreciating the jurisdictional and financial constraints of the Petitioner. It was contended that the engagement of the Respondent-employees was purely temporary and casual in nature, and as such, the claim for permanency and structured wage benefits was untenable. Since the industry falls under the textile sector, the employees had an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 86C of the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The absence of any prior determination by the Wage Board conferring specific wage scales, it was not open for the employees to directly invoke the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court under the MRTU & PULP Act.
7.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further emphasized the precarious financial position of the cooperative society, pointing out that the industry has suffered significant losses due to the volatile pricing of cotton and increasing market competition. The industry had undergone upgradation, such processes were contingent upon the availability of funds, and the current wage structure was reflective of the industry's limited paying capacity. Counsel also raised an exception to the quantum of arrears, asserting that the Industrial Court awarded an excessive amount that exceeded the actual entitlement of the workers. Relying upon the detailed calculations submitted by way of an affidavit, the Petitioner contended that there was no "unfair labour practice" as defined under the Act, as the society had not willfully defaulted but was restricted by economic realities. On these grounds, it was prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the petition be allowed. 8.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioner and perusing the material on record, it is evident that the employees have rendered service for more than a decade and their statutory entitlement to minimum wages has been duly recognized by the Industrial Court after a thorough appreciation of the facts.
9.
When this Court directed the Petitioner to deposit the awarded amount to demonstrate its bona fides, the Petitioner failed to comply despite repeated opportunities, repeatedly citing financial constraints. While the Petitioner argues economic hardship due to cotton prices, the law is well-settled that financial inability is not a valid defense for the non-payment of minimum wages. 10.
Admittedly, the fact remains that these labourers have been deprived of their basic statutory entitlements for a prolonged period. The Petitioner is under a legal obligation to comply with the Tribunal's order, and its persistent failure to deposit even the determined arrears by the tribunal reflects a clear lack of bona fides. The attempt of the Petitioner is to evade its statutory obligations and frustrate the award, which cannot be countenanced by this Court.
11.
This Court finds that the Industrial Court properly considered the undisputed length of service and the subsistence of the employer-employee relationship to determine the rightful entitlement of the Respondents. The contention that the work was temporary is belied by the Petitioner's own record of the employees' continuous engagement since 2006.
12.
Apart from the above, the Industrial Court has recorded a categorical finding that the Petitioner engaged in unfair labour practices under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The direction to pay the differential amount between the actual wages paid and the rates prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act is a direct consequence of this finding. Given the admitted position that the wages paid were below the statutory floor, such findings are consistent with the law and do not warrant any interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 13.
As regards the contention relating to Section 86C of the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946, it is noted that while the issue of wages could potentially have been referred to the Wage Board under Section 86A, no such reference was ever made by the Petitioner, nor was any decision rendered by such a Board. Thus, in the absence of any pending proceedings or prior determination by the Wage Board, it cannot be regarded that the complaint before the Industrial Court was not maintainable. Consequently, the objection raised regarding the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court is found to be untenable.
14.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. vs. Gorakhnath1, has delineated the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well-settled that this Court, while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, does not act as a court of appeal to re-appreciate evidence but only ensures that the subordinate court has acted within the bounds of its authority. 15.
In the present case, the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any perversity, jurisdictional error, or patent illegality in the impugned order. The employees have established that they were engaged since 2006 and have been continuously rendering service for over a decade. The Industrial Court has rightly considered their statutory entitlements in letter and spirit, acknowledging that labor laws are beneficial in nature and must be interpreted to protect the vulnerable class of workers.
16.
Thus, the Petitioner's failure to comply with the Minimum Wages Act cannot be countenanced by claims of financial hardship, especially when the employees have contributed their emplyees for nearly two decades.
2026 INSC 434
17.
The employees, categorized as skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled labourers, are entitled to wages in accordance with the specific notifications issued by the Government of Maharashtra from time to time. The Petitioner has failed to adhere to these mandatory statutory requirements, choosing instead to pay stagnant or substandard wages. 18.
The determination made by the Tribunal, being based on these statutory notifications, therefore deserves to be upheld and endorsed in its entirety.
19.
In view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, the conduct of the Petitioner while denying basic statutory entitlements to the employees for over a decade does not merit any indulgence in the present proceedings.
20.
The petitions are devoid of merit and stands dismissed with costs.
[SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.] Digitally signed by SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR Date:
2026.05.07 19:44:05 +0530 SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR