PERMANENT MAGNETS LIMITED vs MAHIPAT YADAV

Judgment text excerpt

LPA140-11 (19122025).DOC LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Digitally signed by CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE Date: 2026.01.01 15:01:00 +0530 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 140 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1828 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 79 OF 2014 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 140 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1828 OF 2010 M/s. Permanent Magnets Limited ...Appellant Versus Mahipat Yadav ...Respondent _______ Ms. Anjali Purav for Appellant. Mr. Mahendra Agvekar a/w Shraddha Chavan i/b. Rajesh Gehnai for Respondent. _______ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. DATE: 15th DECEMBER 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER AARTI SATHE, J.):- 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the Appellant being aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 19th July 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned order’) passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1828 of 2010 dismissing the Petition filed by the Appellant/Petitioner, thereby upholding the order passed by the Labour Court dated 1 st August 2009 which held that the respondent/workman was entitled to the benefit of his wages in adjudicating proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. 2. Briefly the facts are as follows:- Page 1 of 22 Laxmi LPA140-11 (19122025).DOC i. The Appellant (Org. Petitioner), being the employer, is inter-alia engaged in the manufacture and marketing of industrial magnets. On 20 th May 1987, the Respondent joined the employment of the Appellant/Petitioner-Company as a helper in its canteen. There were separate canteens for Supervisors, Executive and Managerial Staff (‘known as managerial canteen’) as well as for visitors (known as ‘Workers’ Canteen’). A separate set of workmen were engaged for these two separate canteens. T