Bombay High Court
KALYAN DOMBIVLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANRversusNANDKISHOR GOVIND SANE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court set aside the Industrial Court’s 13 February 2013 order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, ordering costs against the petitioner.
Summary
The petition challenged the Industrial Court’s order dated 13 February 2013 which had fixed the quantum of amounts payable to ten employees of Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation without detailed reasoning. The High Court observed that the corporation had failed to produce any material to dispute the amounts, leading to an unsubstantiated award. Since material is now available from both sides, the Court held that a fresh adjudication of the exact quantum is necessary and that the Industrial Court should determine the amount afresh. Consequently, the High Court set aside the 2013 order, remanded the proceedings to the Industrial Court, and directed the corporation to pay costs of Rs.5,000 to each employee or their legal heirs. The Court also issued procedural directions for the remanded proceedings and ordered the transfer of the deposited amount with interest to the Industrial Court. The writ petition was therefore partly allowed and disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the Industrial Court’s order fixing the quantum of award without detailed reasoning should be set aside.
- Whether the matter should be remanded to the Industrial Court for fresh adjudication of the exact amount payable.
- Whether the petitioner municipal corporation should be ordered to pay costs to the respondents.
Subjects
- Industrial Court
- Recovery Application
- Quantum of award
- Remand
- Costs
- Writ Petition
- Municipal Corporation
- Adjudication
Judgment
Neeta Sawant 15-WP-4104-2013.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4104 OF 2013
Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation
and anr. …..Petitioners
: Versus :
N.G. Sane & Ors. ….Respondents
Mr. A.S. Rao, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Yogendra M. Pendse, for Respondent Nos.1 to 10.
Mr. O.A. Chandurkar, Additional Govt. Pleader with Ms. Savita A.
Prabhune, AGP for State.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : 10 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C :
1) The challenge in the petition is to the order dated 13 February
2013 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane in Misc. Application (ULP)
(Reco) No. 1/2012.
2) On account of dismissal of Letter Patent Appeal preferred by
the Petitioner-Corporation before the Division Bench vide judgment and
order dated 16 July 2026, the liability to make payments in terms of the
order passed by the Industrial Court, Thane is now crystallized. The
_____________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NOS. 1 of 4
Thursday, 10 September 2026
Neeta Sawant 15-WP-4104-2013.docx
only dispute is about the quantum of amount payable under the judgment
and order dated 29 April 2010. It appears that the Petitioner-Kalyan
Dombivli Municipal Corporation did not produce any material before the
Industrial Court, on account of which the Court has accepted the
computations given by the Respondent-employees. Now the Municipal
Corporation has sought to produce certain material to disprove the
amounts granted by the Industrial Court in the impugned order dated 13
February 2013. On the other hand, an Affidavit is filed on behalf of the
Respondent-employees justifying award of amounts claimed by them.
3) Perusal of the order dated 13 February 2026 passed by the
Industrial Court would indicate that there is no discussion as to why the
amounts claimed by the Respondents are awarded. While allowing the
Recovery Application, the Industrial Court has recorded only following
findings :
2. The judgment of this Court is confirmed by the High Court. 10 applicants
have worked out the monetary benefits in the Annexure to the application.
The detailed working out of the applicants' claim is also given in the chart
produced on record. The non-applicant appeared through counsel, but failed to
file any Reply. Thereafter, none has appeared for the non-applicants. The
pleadings of the applicants are uncontroverted. The applicants have filed
affidavit of applicant Nandkishor Govind Sane along with chart showing
fixation of pay in revised scale. Claim affidavit and documents are
unchallenged, and I have therefore, non reason to disbelieve the applicants or
discard their claim.
The lack of detailed discussion on fixation/determination of the quantum
is attributable essentially to absence of any defense/material produced by
Petitioner.
4) Now that there is material available on record, which is
produced by both the sides, it is appropriate that adjudication of an exact
amount is made. Instead of this Court directly making this adjudication,
it is appropriate that the same is done by the Industrial Court.
_____________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NOS. 2 of 4
Thursday, 10 September 2026
Neeta Sawant 15-WP-4104-2013.docx
5) While Mr. Pendse the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent-employees is not really averse to remand of proceedings for
adjudication of the exact amount payable, he submits that Petitioner ’s
conduct is responsible for non-recording of detailed reasons by the
Industrial Court in the order dated 13 February 2013. I am in full
agreement with the submissions of Mr. Pendse. The Petitioner-KDMC
did not produce any material disputing the amounts claimed by the
Respondent-employees. This action on the part of the Petitioner-KDMC
has resulted in a situation warranting fresh adjudication upon remand of
the proceedings. The impugned order was passed on 13 February 2013
and adjudication of the amounts payable is required to be done now after
a period of 13 long years. Therefore, Petitioner-KDMC is required to be
saddled with costs. I accordingly proceed to pass the following order :
(i) Order dated 13 February, 2013 passed by the Industrial Court
in Misc. Application ULP (Reco) No.1/2012 is set aside. Misc.
Application ULP (Reco) No.1/2012 is remanded to the Industrial
Court for fresh adjudication.
(ii) Both the parties would be at liberty to produce relevant
material for the purpose of ascertainment of exact amount payable
under the order dated 29 April 2010.
(iii) The Industrial Court shall proceed to decide the Recovery
Application on its own merits without being influenced by any
observations made in the order.
(iv)Petitioner shall pay to each of the Respondent-employees/their
legal heirs costs of Rs.5,000/- within a period of 6 weeks. The
amount of costs shall be transmitted in the bank accounts of the
Respondents No.1 to 10/ their legal heirs.
_____________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NOS. 3 of 4
Thursday, 10 September 2026
Neeta Sawant 15-WP-4104-2013.docx
(v) The Industrial Court shall proceed to decide the remanded
proceedings in an expeditious manner preferably within a period
of 6 months.
(vi) The parties shall appear before the Industrial Court alongwith
copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Court on
21 September 2026 and shall obtain further directions for fixation
of dates of hearing in the remanded proceedings.
(vii) The entire amount deposited in this Court alongwith accrued
interest shall be transferred to the Industrial Court which shall be
invested by the Industrial Court in interest bearing deposits.
6) With the above directions, the Writ Petition is partly
allowed and disposed of.
NEETA
SHAILESH
SAWANT [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Digitally signed by
NEETA SHAILESH
SAWANT
Date: 2026.09.16
10:49:09 +0530
_____________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NOS. 4 of 4
Thursday, 10 September 2026
Checking your session…