An appellate court may also issue a writ of Certiorari with collecting information on a matter that is currently before it. Certiorari is a legal procedure for requesting judicial review of a lower court’s or government agency’s decision; the High Court Of Bombay upheld this, and the honorable judge, RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J pronounced this judgment on 31.01.2022 in AMOL GAIKAWAD AND ORS V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Writ Petition No. 708 Of 2022)
The petitioners have filed a six-page comprehensive application in the manner of Form ‘K’ in this matter. The application does not have to be as brief as form “K.” It is important content, not the format. It is a well-known fact that these petitioners have filed their application (undated), which includes the date on which the Registrar Trade Unions received it. The Dy. Registrar informed the petitioners via email on September 21, 2019, that an order had been issued providing a permission certificate for sending the matter to the Industrial Court. The Union filed Writ Petition No.985 of 2020, which was filed in response to the consent certificate.
The Dy. Registrar assumed that these petitioners had been refused Union membership, and hence the consent certificate could not have been given. However, because of the Dy. Registrar failed to evaluate various documents, this Court, in an order dated 11/3/2020, reversed the Dy. Registrar’s a decision and remanded the case to his office for reconsideration.
As a result, the petitioners claim to be members of the Union. The learned Advocate for the Union concedes that petitioner no.2 was a Union office holder in 2011. Petitioner No. 2 claims to have served as the Vice President of the Union from 2005 to 2011. According to the Registrar, he cannot rule on the grounds of the argument over whether petitioner No. 2 was the Vice President of the Union until 2011 or whether he was unjustly removed after that.
The petitioners’ learned counsel contends that because the Union did not send receipts, they cannot demonstrate that they were members of the Union until 2018. The Union money of Rs.5,000/- was reportedly withheld from the pay, according to the arrears calculation slip (October 2013 to August 2014) regarding one petitioner on page 59 of the Petition Paper Book. The salary slips for the N.M.S. Agreement Arrears decrease for October 2017 to March 2019 show that these petitioners donated Rs.1500/- to the Union, as per L.T.S. Clause 10(iv).
The learned Advocate for the Union has argued vehemently that this Court should accept the Union’s view that the petitioners are regarded as non-members of the Union if they do not have receipts indicating their membership. He says that the petitioners’ payment to the Union up to March 2019 is not a Union Membership contribution but rather an acknowledgment of the recognized Union’s efforts in reaching long-term settlements under Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. This cannot be interpreted as a charge for union membership.
After reviewing the arguments and impugned order, the Learned Judge finds that it was decided that remanding the case to the Dy. Registrar of Trade Unions would be unnecessary. Given the available material in the Union’s custody that can be produced before the Industrial Court, it would be improper to remand the case to the Dy. Registrar, especially since I believe the Industrial Court could look into an issue of the petitioners’ membership being suppressed and their membership contributions being disguised as union donations. As a result, this Petition is permitted. Respondent no. 2’s challenged order, dated 29/1/2021, is quashed and set aside.
Reviewed by Rangasree