Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Vs. Indian Gum Industries Ltd.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3936 of 2001
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 23.1.2001 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in LPA No. 356/2000 in W.P. No. 4527/1995]
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 23.1.2001 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in LPA No. 356/2000 in W.P. No. 4527/1995]
Petitioner: Maharashtra General Kamgar Union
Respondent: Indian Gum Industries Ltd.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3936 of 2001
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 23.1.2001 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in LPA No. 356/2000 in W.P. No. 4527/1995]
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 23.1.2001 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in LPA No. 356/2000 in W.P. No. 4527/1995]
Judges: H.S. Bedi & Aftab Alam, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 30, 2008
Appearances:
Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Senior Advocate, Ms. Nidhi Dahaia and Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Advocates with him for the Appellant.
Mr. Indu Malhotra, Senior Advocate, Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Ms. Monisha Handa and Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocates with him for the Respondent.
Mr. Indu Malhotra, Senior Advocate, Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Ms. Monisha Handa and Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocates with him for the Respondent.
Head Note:
Service and Labour Law
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 25K(1) – Computation of number of workmen – If workmen of contractor, mathadi workers and workmen of other industrial establishments liable to be included. Held that since this matter has been compromised, the question would be resolved in some other case. Hence, question kept open. (Paras 2, 3)
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 25K(1) – Computation of number of workmen – If workmen of contractor, mathadi workers and workmen of other industrial establishments liable to be included. Held that since this matter has been compromised, the question would be resolved in some other case. Hence, question kept open. (Paras 2, 3)
JUDGEMENT:
Order
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. At the very outset Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel for the respondent points out that after the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 23rd January, 2001, all the workmen had arrived at settlements with the respondent-employer and taken their dues and given affidavits that they had no further claims against the respondent. She has thus urged that in the light of this fact, which has also been brought on record, the present appeal has become infructuous. Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, has however pointed out that the issue raised in the present appeal is one of the general importance and as the impugned judgment was being followed by all subordinate courts in Maharashtra, it would be appropriate that the matter be decided here. He has pointed out that the question posed i.e. Whether for the purposes of computing the number of workmen while applying sub-section (1) of Section 25K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 contractors workmen, mathadi workers and workmen of other industrial establishments are liable to be included?’ was of significance and brooked no delay.
3. We are of the opinion that in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the present matter does not survive but we do find that the matter is of general importance, which will ultimately have to be resolved in some other case. We accordingly dispose of the appeal and leave the question open to be decided in an appropriate matter. There will be no order as to costs.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. At the very outset Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel for the respondent points out that after the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 23rd January, 2001, all the workmen had arrived at settlements with the respondent-employer and taken their dues and given affidavits that they had no further claims against the respondent. She has thus urged that in the light of this fact, which has also been brought on record, the present appeal has become infructuous. Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, has however pointed out that the issue raised in the present appeal is one of the general importance and as the impugned judgment was being followed by all subordinate courts in Maharashtra, it would be appropriate that the matter be decided here. He has pointed out that the question posed i.e. Whether for the purposes of computing the number of workmen while applying sub-section (1) of Section 25K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 contractors workmen, mathadi workers and workmen of other industrial establishments are liable to be included?’ was of significance and brooked no delay.
3. We are of the opinion that in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the present matter does not survive but we do find that the matter is of general importance, which will ultimately have to be resolved in some other case. We accordingly dispose of the appeal and leave the question open to be decided in an appropriate matter. There will be no order as to costs.
