Case Note & Summary
The matter comprises a batch of writ petitions filed by Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth Rahuri against Ahmednagar Zilla Shet Mazoor Union, various retired employees, and the State of Maharashtra. The petitions challenged complaints filed by the union on behalf of retired employees pertaining to pension dues allegedly payable since 1996. The petitioner contended that the union lacked authority to represent retired employees, that no employer-employee relationship existed with retired employees, and that the complaints were barred by limitation. The writ petitions were admitted by the High Court on 8 March 2011. The court recorded the petitioner's submissions that the union had no standing and the complaints were filed beyond the period of limitation. The respondents' arguments were partially noted, referring to certain documents, but the text of the judgment is incomplete, and the final decision, reasoning, and operative directions are not available.
Issue of Consideration
WRIT PETITION NO.4883 2009
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (02) 8
WRIT PETITION NO.4883/2009 and others
P.L. Shahane for petitioner, S.T. Shelke for respondent Nos.1 & 2, D.R. Korde for respondent no.3
Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth Rahuri
Ahmednagar Zilla Shet Mazoor Union and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Article 226 challenging complaints filed by trade union on behalf of retired employees regarding pension dues.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the complaints or orders passed by the authority based on the complaints.
Filing Reason
Petitioner contended that the union lacked authority, there was no employer-employee relationship with retired employees, and the complaints were time-barred.
Previous Decisions
The writ petitions were admitted by the High Court on 8.3.2011.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the respondent Union had no authority to file complaints on behalf of retired employees.
The petitioner contended that there was no relationship of employee and employer between the retired employees and the petitioner.
The petitioner submitted that the complaint was filed in 2004 regarding pension due in 1996 and was therefore beyond the period of limitation.
Judgment Excerpts
All the above petitions have been admitted by this Court on 8.3.2011.
He further submits that there is no relationship of employee and employer as such between the retired employees and the petitioner herein.
He further submits that the complaint was filed in 2004 making grievance about the pension which according to the complainant was due to be paid in 1996.
Therefore, the Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complaint filed by the respondent Union was beyond the period of limitation.
Procedural History
The writ petitions were admitted by the High Court on 8 March 2011.
