Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kothari Kamgar Committee, a trade union registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926, filed a writ petition challenging the no objection certificate (NOC) dated 11.08.2005 issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner for developing the factory land of Respondent No.5, M/s Kothari AutoParts Manufacturers Limited. The petitioner also challenged the order dated 20.05.2008 issued to the Municipal Commissioner by the Labour Commissioner and letters dated 31.10.2013 and 01.11.2013 issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Thane, confirming the permission. The petitioner contended that the NOC was issued without authority, in colourable exercise of power, abuse of process of law, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice. The facts reveal that on 28.08.2003, the Labour Commissioner declared closure of the factory. The Deputy Labour Commissioner issued the NOC on 11.08.2005. The petitioner filed the writ petition in 2014, nearly nine years after the NOC. The court heard arguments from Mr. M. Janardhanan for the petitioner, Mr. V. S. Gokhale for respondent nos.1, 3 & 4, and Mr. A. V. Bukhari, Senior Advocate for respondent no.5. The court observed that the petition suffered from delay and laches as the NOC was issued in 2005 and the petition was filed in 2014. The court also noted that the petitioner had not demonstrated any violation of principles of natural justice or any illegality in the issuance of the NOC. The court held that the impugned orders were valid and not liable to be interfered with under writ jurisdiction. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the NOC and the subsequent orders.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25-O - No Objection Certificate - Validity - Challenge to NOC issued by Deputy Labour Commissioner for developing factory land - Petitioner trade union alleged NOC was without authority, colourable exercise of power, and violative of natural justice - Court held that the NOC was issued after due consideration and in accordance with law, and the petition suffered from delay and laches - Held that the impugned orders are valid and not liable to be interfered with (Paras 2-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the no objection certificate dated 11.08.2005 issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner for developing the factory land of Respondent No.5 and the subsequent orders/letters confirming the same are valid and not violative of principles of natural justice.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the no objection certificate dated 11.08.2005, the order dated 20.05.2008, and the letters dated 31.10.2013 and 01.11.2013.
Law Points
- No Objection Certificate under Section 25-O of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Principles of Natural Justice
- Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India
- Delay and Laches
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (10) 72
Civil Writ Petition No. 11551 of 2014
Shantanu S. Kemkar, Nitin W. Sambre
Mr. M. Janardhanan for Petitioner, Mr. V. S. Gokhale for Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4, Mr. A. V. Bukhari, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Amol B. Desai a/w Mr. Avinash Jalisatgi I/b Lokeshappa for Respondent No.5
State of Maharashtra, Municipal Commissioner of Thane, Addl. Commissioner of Labour Maharashtra, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, M/s Kothari AutoParts Manufacturers Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the no objection certificate issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner for developing factory land.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the no objection certificate dated 11.08.2005, order dated 20.05.2008, and letters dated 31.10.2013 and 01.11.2013.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that the NOC was issued without authority, in colourable exercise of power, abuse of process of law, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice.
Issues
Whether the no objection certificate dated 11.08.2005 issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner is valid?
Whether the subsequent orders and letters confirming the NOC are valid?
Whether the petition is maintainable given the delay and laches?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the NOC was issued without authority, in colourable exercise of power, abuse of process of law, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice.
Respondents argued that the NOC was issued after due consideration and in accordance with law, and the petition suffered from delay and laches.
Ratio Decidendi
The NOC was issued after due consideration and in accordance with law, and the petition suffered from delay and laches as it was filed nearly nine years after the NOC. The impugned orders are valid and not liable to be interfered with under writ jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
Impugned in the present writ petition is the no objection dated 11.08.2005 issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, for developing the factory land of Respondent No.5 and order dated 20.05.2008 issued to the Municipal Commissioner by the Labour Commissioner and also the letter dated 31.10.2013 and 01.11.2013 issued by the Respondent No.2 i.e. Municipal Commissioner, Thane, justifying and confirming the permission issued for developing the land of the Respondent No.5 on the ground that same is without any authority, in exercise of any colourable exercise of the powers, abuse of process of law, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.
Procedural History
The Deputy Labour Commissioner issued a no objection certificate on 11.08.2005 for developing the factory land of Respondent No.5. On 20.05.2008, the Labour Commissioner issued an order to the Municipal Commissioner. On 31.10.2013 and 01.11.2013, the Municipal Commissioner issued letters confirming the permission. The petitioner filed the writ petition in 2014 challenging these orders.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 25-O
- Trade Union Act, 1926:
- Companies Act, 1956:
- Constitution of India: Article 226
