Bombay High Court
TALUKA SHETKARI SAHKARI KHAREDI THROUGH ITS MANAGER AND ANOTHERversusTANAJI DAULATRAO SURYAWANSHI DIED AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The High Court disposed of the writ petition and directed the Labour Court to decide the pending complaint within one year.
Summary
The petitioners, a farmers' cooperative society, filed a writ petition challenging an interim order dated 31.08.2015 of the Latur Labour Court and a subsequent judgment dated 16.08.2017 of the Industrial Court in a labour dispute. They sought a direction that the Labour Court decide the main complaint (ULP No. 17 of 2015) without the High Court entertaining the merits of the case. The High Court, after hearing counsel, declined to interfere with the substantive merits and instead ordered the Labour Court to dispose of the complaint within one year from the date of the order. All contentions raised by the parties were kept open for consideration by the Labour Court. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, with a procedural directive to the lower court.
Issues considered
- What procedural authority does the High Court have to direct a Labour Court to decide a pending complaint within a specified time frame?
Subjects
- writ petition
- labour court
- industrial dispute
- interim order
- procedural direction
- High Court jurisdiction
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:11995
Dilwale 1 42-WP-11219-17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
42 WRIT PETITION NO. 11219 OF 2017
Taluka Shetkari Sahkari Kharedi Through Its Manager And Another
VERSUS
Tanaji Daulatrao Suryawanshi Died And Others
...
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Irpatgire A. N.
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Jadhavar Santosh S.
Advocate for Respondent No.4 :Mr. S. S. Jadhvar
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 18.03.2026
PER COURT :
1. The present petition challenges the interim order dated 31.08.2015
passed by the Labour Court, Latur in Complaint (ULP) No. 17/2015 and
the judgment and order dated 16.08.2017 passed by learned Member
Industrial Court in Revision (ULP) No 32/2015. After hearing for some
time, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, without going
into the merits of the matter, the purpose would be served if a direction is
issued to the Labour Court to decide the main complaint within a
stipulated period.
2. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of. The
Labour Court is directed to decide Complaint (ULP) No.17 of 2015 within
a period of one year from today.
3. All contentions are kept open.
[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE J.]
Checking your session…