Bombay High Court
CLARIANT CHEMICALS INDIA LTD THRU AUTHORIZED AND ORSversusMANGESH KRISHNA MORE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Rejected
Holding
The court held that the writ petition is baseless and, due to delay and lack of merit, must be rejected.
Summary
The petitioners, Clariant Chemicals India Ltd, sought to challenge a reference order dated 10 September 2015, alleging that the respondents were not employees of the petitioners but of contractors, and that the dispute concerned their demand for regular appointment despite alleged medical unfitness. The court noted the petition was filed after a gross delay and laches, having participated in the reference for many years. It was admitted that the petitioners had proposed regular appointments to contractor employees in 2010, but the respondents were excluded due to colour blindness. The court held that the dispute related to the respondents' demand for absorption, but the petition was baseless and could not be entertained. Consequently, the writ petition was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether a reference order dated 10 September 2015 can be challenged after a prolonged delay and laches.
- Whether the respondents were employees of the petitioners or of the contractors, affecting the existence of an industrial dispute.
- Whether the respondents' colour blindness and alleged medical unfitness preclude their absorption and render the petition viable.
Subjects
- industrial dispute
- reference order
- regular appointment
- colour blindness
- laches
- writ petition
- Bombay High Court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:35242
Renuka 7-WP-10705-2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10705 OF 2026
Clariant Chemicals India Ltd Through ...Petitioners
Authorized representatives and Ors.
V/s.
Mangesh Krishna More and Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Ms. Satyapriya Rao i/b Mr. Vaibhav P. Patankar (through VC) for
Petitioner.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 25 AUGUST 2026.
P.C.:
1) By this Petition, Petitioners have challenged the reference
order dated 10 September 2015.
2) It must be observed at the very outset that the Petition is
filed after gross delay and laches. The reference is made by order dated
10 September 2015. The Petitioners have participated in the reference. In
fact today, Writ Petition No. 10644 of 2026 was listed in which order
dated 15 April 2026 on application filed at Exh-C-21 was under
challenge. By that Application, Petitioners had sought impleadment of
contractors to the reference. Having participated in the reference for so
long, Petitioners now want to question existence of industrial dispute
Page No.1 of 2
25 August 2026
Renuka 7-WP-10705-2026.docx
and now are seeking a challenge to the reference order dated 10
September 2015.
3) It is sought to be contended that the Respondents were
never employees of the Petitioners and that they were employees of the
contractors. However, it is an admitted position that by notice dated 25
June 2010, Petitioners had proposed grant of regular appointments to
the employees of the contractors. The Respondents are left out on
account of their alleged medical unfitness.
4) It is the case of the Petitioners that Respondent suffered
from colour blindness and were therefore not absorbed to the service.
Therefore, the dispute relates to demand of the Respondents for
absorption in the service of the Petitioners. It therefore cannot be
contended that the Petitioners are not concerned with the dispute as
such.
5) Writ Petition is totally baseless and the same is accordingly
rejected.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Renuka S Thakur
Page No.2 of 2
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 25 August 2026
Date: 28/08/2026 10:36:27
Checking your session…