Chandan Po vs Ankush Bha

Chandan Polimars Pvt Ltd Vs Ankush Bhausaheb Bhor Or 14

Case Details

Case Type	Application IT
Filing Number	5000841/2015
Registration Number	5000037/2015
Filing Date	10-09-2015
Registration Date	10-09-2015

First Hearing Date	05th October 2015
Decision Date	19th August 2017
Case Status	Case Disposed
Court Number and Judge	1-Member, Industrial Court,Ahmednagar;
Nature of Disposal	Contested--Judgment;

Petitioners & Respondents

Petitioner

Chandan Polimars Pvt Ltd, ;

Petitioner Advocate

D.V.Changede;

Respondent Name

Ankush Bhausaheb Bhor Or , Shahaji Nana Khendke, Hanumant Vasant Jeve, Pravin Narayan Bhadange, Ramd Show more..

Respondent Advocate

K.Y. Modgekar;

Order Details

Order not found.

Final Order Judgement

Order Date

19-08-2017

1 Approval/Application (IT) No.37 of 2015 Exh.__ IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT AT AHMEDNAGAR BEFORE SHRI D.H.DESHMUKH, MEMBER Approval/Application (IT) No.37 of 2015 Chandan Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 144 to 146, Industrial Estate, Kedgaon, Nagar Pune Road Ahmednagar. ..Applicant VERSUS 1. Ankush Bhausaheb Bhor Age: Major, Occ. : Service, R/o. A.P. Bhorwadi, Tal. & Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. Shahaji Nana Khendke Age: Major, Occ .: Service, R/o. A.P. : Mandavgan, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3. Hanumant Vasant Jeve Age: Major, Occ .: Service, R/o. A. P. Nimbodi, Tal. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. 4. Pravin Narayan Bhadange Age : Major, Occ. : Service, R/o. : Aarti society, Bhushan Nagar, Kedgoan, Ahmednagar. 5. Ramdas Ashok Jeve Age : Major, Occ. : Service, R/o. A.P. Nimbodi, Tal. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2 Approval/Application (IT) No.37 of 2015 6. Santosh Ramchandra Kharade Age : Major, Occ. : Service, R/o. : Ayodhya Nagar, Kedgaon, Dist.: Ahmednagar. 7. Shyam Dhanagi Chobe Age : Major, Occ.: Service, R/o. : Plot No.1, Behind Jijamata Colony, Near Water Tank, Bhushan Nagar, Kedgaon, Ahmednagar. 8. Sandeep Maruti Thorat Age : Major, Occ. : Service, R/o. A.P. Deolgaon Sidhi, Tal. & Dist. : Ahmednagar. 9. Thakaram Baban Pawar Age : Major, Occ. : Service, R/o. A.P. : Pimpalgaon Kowda, Tal. & Dist. : Ahmednagar. 10. Raffik Munshi Momin Age : Major, Occ. : Service, R/o. : Subhedar Galli, Zendi gate, Ahmednagar. 11. Prashant Dattatraya Jadhav Age : Major, Occ. : Service, R/o. : Ayodhya Nagar, Link Road, Kedgao, Ahmednagar. 12. Rakesh Kashinath Jamdade Age : Major, Occ. : Service, R/o. : Vrundavan Colony, Bhushan Nagar, Kedgaon, Ahmednagar. 13. Dattatraya Namdeo Bhavar Age : Major, Occ. : Service, R/o. : Ayodhya Nagar, Link Road, Kedgao, Ahmednagar. 3 Approval/Application (IT) No.37 of 2015 14. Rajendra Sahebrao Karande Age : Major, Occ. : Service, R/o. : Ayodhya Nagar, Link Road, Kedgao, Ahmednagar. 15. Aasir Abbas Sayyad Age : Major, Occ. : Service, R/o. : Near Vishvakarma Temple, Shivajinagar, Kedgaon, Ahmednagar. ..Non-applicants CORAM - SHRI D.H.DESHMUKH, MEMBER Appearance: Shri D.V.Changede, counsel for applicant. Shri K.Y.Modgekar, counsel for non-applicants. JUDGMENT (Delivered on 19-08-2017) 1) This is an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act for approval of the action of termination of services of fifteen non-applicants. 2) The applicant has contended that for want of orders, there was no alternative but to retrench the employees. The applicant, therefore, decided to retrench 35 daily rated employees w.e.f.10-09-2015. The union requested not to retrench 35 employees. Therefore, after settlement, the applicant decided to retrench 15 employees. Notice has been 4 Approval/Application (IT) No.37 of 2015 sent to the Government. The seniority list was published. Every retrenched employee has been given notice and compensation. The applicant offered retrenchment orders alongwith Cheque on 09-09-2015. 3) The non-applicants have resisted the claim contending that the application is not maintainable. The non-applicants are not aware of the settlement with the union, and they are not its members. The union has no right to make a settlement providing for retrenchment. The retrenchment compensation paid is illegal. Compensation has not been correctly paid. Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is not complied with etc. 4) The issues that arise for my determination and my findings thereon are as under:- Sr. No. Issues Findings 1 Does the applicant prove that the action of retrenchment deserves to be approved ? Yes. 2 What order ? As per final order. 5 Approval/Application (IT) No.37 of 2015 R E A S O N S 5) Issue Nos.1 & 2:- I have gone through the record, and have heard Shri D.V.Changede and Shri K.Y.Modgekar, the learned counsels. The applicant has examined Shri Dhiraj Lalchand Munot the Director of the company. The Director has stated about the business of the company, the number of employees employed and the fact that there was want of orders and consequently want of work to be offered to the employees. The company tried its best to get the orders, but could not succeed. It was decided to retrench the employees. Notice of retrenchment was given to all. The copies of such notice and other documents are produced with Exh.C-8. The union requested not to retrench all 35 employees. The Director has stated about retrenchment notice, copy of retrenchment notice served to the Government, the discussion with the union, and the subsequent decision to retrench fifteen employees. 6 Approval/Application (IT) No.37 of 2015 6) According to the Director, before retrenchment, seniority list was published and the same is produced here. Notice was issued to the Government. Notice of retrenchment dated 10-09-2015 was issued to fifteen junior employees, and the copies are produced which are signed by him. The Director has stated that along with notice, the applicant paid wages, retrenchment compensation, and one month wages as per Section 33. The present application is made as the Reference is pending before this Court. The Director has deposed as to documents produced with Exh.C-8. In cross-examination, Director admits that Shri Ankush Bhor and few others have been re-employed, but not the others. Admittedly, the complaint ULP no.33 of 2015 is pending wherein retrenchment has been challenged in the Labour Court. Director denies a suggestion that his affidavit is false. 7) The documents with Exh.C-8 regarding which the Director stated in his affidavits are not disputed. Therefore, those documents are collectively marked as Exh.C-8A. First 7 Approval/Application (IT) No.37 of 2015 is the retrenchment notice dated 09-08-2015. The second and third are the union's letters. Then, the next document is settlement signed between the applicant and the union which inter-alia, indicates that the company agreed to retrench only fifteen employees. The next documents are a seniority list dated 25-08-2015, the letters exchanged between the applicant and the union, and the notice about retrenchment served upon the State Government. The subsequent retrenchment notice which is subject matter of this case is dated 10-09-2015, and the second notice served upon the State Government. 8) Having considered everything, I find that the fifteen non- applicants were retrenched by offering one months wages as contemplated under Section 33 and by complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The non-applicants have neither proved nor even suggested to the applicant's witness that the provisions of the Industrial disputes Act were not followed correctly. Prima-facie, I find that there was retrenchment in accordance with law and since 8 Approval/Application (IT) No.37 of 2015 a Reference was pending, the present application has been made. Prima-facie, I find no reason to refuse approval. It is, however, made clear that grant of this approval shall not come in way of the complaint or the proceeding filed by the non- applicants challenging the retrenchment. The non-applicants shall be at liberty to continue to challenge the retrenchment in such proceeding in accordance with law. With this, the following order:- ORDER (i) The application is allowed. (ii) The action of retrenchment is hereby approved. (iii) No order as to costs. (D.H.Deshmukh) Member, Date:- 19-08-2017 Industrial Court, Ahmednagar Assistant Registrar, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar

Similar Cases

Frequently Asked Questions

The Petitioner in case Chandan Polimars Pvt Ltd vs Ankush Bhausaheb Bhor Or 14 is Chandan Polimars Pvt Ltd.

The Respondent in case Chandan Polimars Pvt Ltd vs Ankush Bhausaheb Bhor Or 14 is Ankush Bhausaheb Bhor Or 14 and 15 more.

The case against Ankush Bhausaheb Bhor Or 14was filed on 10-09-2015 by Chandan Polimars Pvt Ltd.

The status of case Chandan Polimars Pvt Ltd against Ankush Bhausaheb Bhor Or 14 is Case Disposed.