SHIVAJIRAO PATIL NILANGEKAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD AMBULGA, NILANGAversusDILIP RAMCHANDRA BHOSALE AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:38467
                                                  1                     85-WP-4997-07.odt




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                                 WRIT PETITION NO.4997 OF 2007

                Shivajirao Patil Nilangekar Sahakari Sakhar
                Karkhana Ltd. Ambulga (S) Bidar Road
                Nilanga, District Latur                          ..    Petitioner

                            Versus

                1.    Dilip Ramchandra Bhosale,
                      Age 42 years, Occu. Nil,
                      R/o. Mitranagar, Latur, District Latur

                2.    Rajkumar s/o. Tukaram Hulpalle,
                      Age 38 years, Occu. Raming Mudgad,
                      Taluka Nilanga, District Latur             ..    Respondents

                Mr. V. N. Upadhaye, Advocate for Petitioner;
                Mr. H. A. Karad, Advocate holding for Mr. A. V. Hon, Advocate for
                Respondents


                                           CORAM :        SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                           DATE       :   20-08-2026
                JUDGMENT:-

                1.    The petitioner assails the order rendered by the Industrial

                Court, Latur in Revision (ULP) No. 280 of 2004 dated 29.01.2007,

                which endorsed the order of the Labour Court, Latur, allowing the

                Complaint (ULP) No 50 of 1995 dated 02.07.2004, presented by

                the respondents under Section 28(1) read with Schedule IV, Item

                1(a), (b), (d), (f), and (g) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade

                Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for

                short, “MRTU and PULP Act”).
                                  2                     85-WP-4997-07.odt



2.     Complainants No. 1 and 2 were appointed as a Driver and

Personal Assistant on 02.09.1992 and 11.02.1991, respectively.

Both worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar

year before the petitioner-employer terminated their services on

04.05.1995. This termination occurred without the mandatory

notice or compensation in lieu of notice required under Section

25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “Act”). The

complainants signed the muster roll on the final day, however,

subsequently they were barred from attending their duties.           As

such, the complaint was presented before the Labour Court.

Considering the claim and objections, the Labour Court allowed

the complaint.   Assailing the said order, the petitioner preferred

revision petition before the Industrial Court, was dismissed, which

is subject matter of the present petition.


3.     Learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the courts

below failed to consider the complainants' absenteeism and that

the assertion of termination is completely unfounded. Also argued

that   both   courts   ignored   the   material   evidence   indicating

abandonment of service by the complainants, thereby committing

an error of law by treating the severance of service as a violation

of the Act. Hence, prayed to allow the petition.


4.     Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has

supported the impugned orders and submitted that a dispute
                                   3                        85-WP-4997-07.odt



between    the    outgoing    management           and   the     incoming

management committee resulted in the obstruction of services of

the complainants, who were appointed by the predecessor

committee, preventing them from discharging their duties. It is

argued that this obstruction constitutes an unfair labour practice

under Item 1 of Schedule IV read with Section 28(1) of MRTU &

PULP Act. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.


5.    After hearing litigating sides and perusing the record, it is

evident the complainants completed 240 days of continuous

service, bringing them under the protective ambit of Section 25N

of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, the Labour Court

rightly held their summary dismissal to be an unfair labour

practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV. This finding of fact was

arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence and was

endorsed by the Industrial Court.


6.    While   challenging    the    finding   of   Labour      Court,   the

petitioner’s attempt that this Court shall re-appreciate the oral and

documentary evidence, an exercise that is impermissible while

exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the

Constitution. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Basamma & Anr. v. Goparappa and others, (2026

INSC 712), a High Court exercising its supervisory jurisdiction

cannot transform itself into an appellate court to re-appreciate
                                   4                        85-WP-4997-07.odt



evidence,      well-reasoned   findings   of    fact   unless   they    are

demonstrably perverse.


7.       It is evident that the concurrent findings of fact rendered by

the courts below do not suffer from any such infirmity. The sub-

ordinate courts arrived at factual conclusions through a proper

appreciation of the evidence on record, their concurrent findings

warrant no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India.


8.       The submission put forth by the learned counsel for the

petitioner     that   reinstatement    should   not    automatically     be

accompanied by an award of back wages, runs contrary to the

verdict of the the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case Hindustan Tin

Works Private Limited V. Employees of Hindustan Tin

Works Private Limited reported in (1979) 2 SCC 80.                     The

Apex Court observed that the payment of backwages involves a

discretionary element, it has to be dealt with, in the facts and

circumstances of each case, that there exists a statutory sanction

to award payment of full backwages in its entirety.


9.       Therefore, the contention advanced by the petitioner fails to

warrant consideration. It is well-settled that this Court will not

interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the absence of material

on record demonstrating a manifest jurisdictional error or patent

illegality committed by the courts below.
                                 5                       85-WP-4997-07.odt



10.   In the absence of any material irregularity, perversity, or

manifest illegality in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by

the courts regarding the unfair labour practices committed by the

petitioner, I am of the considered view that the impugned orders

do    not   warrant   interference.   There   is    no   demonstrable

jurisdictional error. Consequently, the petition lacks merit and does

not warrant consideration.


11.   Resultantly, the petition stands dismissed.


12.   Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.


13.   Rule is discharged.


14.   No order as to costs.




                                 [SACHIN S. DESHMUKH]
                                         JUDGE

rrd