P. M. Palshikar

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2509 OF 2014 Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Mr. P. M. Palshikar for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. CORAM : N. M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 07 APRIL, 2014 P.C.: The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Labour Court, Mumbai has not considered the stand of the Petitioner that 5 th Pay Commission, upon which the reliance was sought by the Respondent, was made applicable only after execution of the agreement dated 25 June 2004 and the Respondent had obtained voluntary retirement scheme on 31 May 2004 and therefore, it was not applicable to him. Issue notice to the Respondent, returnable on 5 May 2014. Till further orders, the Respondent will not take coercive steps based on the impugned order. (N.M. JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 29: Sequeira IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2509 of 2014 The Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation. .. Petitioner Vs. Shri Balkrishna Ganpati Salunkhe. .. Respondent Mr.P.M.Palshikar, for the Petitioner. Mr.Vaibhav Gaikwad, for the Respondent. CORAM: N.M.Jamdar, J. Monday 23 November, 2015 P.C. : Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The Petitioner Federation challenges the order dated 3 August 2013 passed by Labour Court, Mumbai allowing application filed by the Respondentmember under Section 33 (c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court has accepted the claim of the Respondent No.1 for entitlement of difference and wages for the period from 1 June 2003 to 31 May 2004 after applicability of recommendation from 5th Pay Commission and certain other findings. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that some employees of the Federation who were not in the category of workmen had filed Writ petition No.4274 of 2009 and 4267 of 2009 with the Aurangabad bench of this Court and the Division bench had granted identical relief which is granted by the Labour Court in the present case. The learned counsel submitted that the Federation has challenged the decision of the Division bench by way of Civil Appeal Nos.4521 and 4522 of 2013 and the Apex Court has admitted and granted leave and unconditionally stayed the operation of the orders. Copies of the orders are placed on record. In view of this position, Rule. Respondent waives service. The interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b). Liberty to apply after the decision of the Apex Court is rendered. (N.M.Jamdar, J.)