Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: N. M. No.1434/2019 Order
MHCC010037152019 Presented on : 02.04.2019
Registered on : 02.04.2019
Decided on : 08.09.2025
Duration : 06 05 06
Years Months Days
IN THE COURT OF CITY CIVIL FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1434/2019
(CNR NO. MHCC010037152019)
IN
SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO. 860/2019
Shramik Utkarsha Sabha,
a registered Trade Union under Indian Trade Union
Act, 1923 under Registration No.II/7655 of 82
affiliated to INTUC, through its General Secretary
Shri Vijay Kamble, having its office at 3/141, Kher
Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051. … Plaintiff
Versus
1 M/s. B. D. Petit Parsee General Hospital,
having its hospital at B. D. Petit Road, Cumballa
Hill, Mumbai 400036.
2 Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha,
A registered trade union having Office at 4th floor,
Goregaonkar Road, near Kenady Bridge, Mumbai
400007. … Defendants
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE, A. C. DAGA
: COURT ROOM NO. 61
DATE : 08.09.2025
Appearances: -
None for Plaintiff.
Adv. Jagirdar i/b Maneksha and Sethna for Defendant No.1.
Representative of Defendant No.2.
ORDER
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
Instant Notice of Motion is filed by the Plaintiff praying for
directing the Defendant No.1 to enter into Agreement for permanent
-- 1 of 5 --
N. M. No. 1434/2019 ... 2 … Order
alternate premises with the employees who are members of the Plaintiff
Union and to pay monthly compensation to them as well as to restrain
the Defendant No.1 from carrying out any construction activities on the
suit plot.
2. It is pleaded in the Notice of Motion that the Plaintiff is a
Trade Union. Defendant No.2 is a recognized Trade Union of Defendant
No.1. There are about 130 employees working with the Defendant No.1.
Service quarters were provided to them. Defendants No.1 and 2 acted in
hand in gloves and gave the understanding to the workers that the
quarters are in dangerous condition and it may collapse at any point of
time and got it evicted and have paid amount Rs.1,80,000/- given to 40
workers by taking their thumb impressions/signatures on papers
without disclosing its contents and without entering into any Agreement
or settlement.
3. The Defendant No.2 had assured of permanent alternate
premises within 24 months from dispossession, but same has never
been done. Therefore notice issued, but of no use. Hence, the Notice of
Motion.
4. Defendant No.1 contested Notice of Motion by filing Reply
and has pleaded that the Plaintiff is not the authorized Union and
therefore, has no right and locus to file any suit itself. Defendant No.1
further pleaded that the workers had evicted the service quarters after
obtaining compensation way back around 11 years ago and instant suit
was filed after a gap of 11 years, which itself is barred. The Defendant
No.2 is a registered Trade Union and is recognized by Defendant No.1.
It is the Defendant No.2 who is looking after welfare of the labours and
the staff working with the Defendant No.1. The employees had
-- 2 of 5 --
N. M. No. 1434/2019 ... 3 … Order
executed an Agreement dated 03.02.2007 at the time of vacating the
quarters and have received the compensation. No complaint by any of
the employees. Hence, the Plaintiff has no locus and prayed for
dismissal of Notice of Motion.
5. Defendant No.2 contested the Notice of Motion by filing
Reply and has pleaded that it is the Defendant No.2 which is recognized
Trade Union and has adopted the pleadings made by the Defendant
No.1.
6. Perused the record. It appears that Defendant No.2 is a
recognized Trade Union of Defendant No.1. Plaintiff is claiming that the
employees were evicted from the service quarters without any
Agreement and in spite of assurance of Defendant No.2 has not been
provided permanent alternate premises.
7. The fact that Defendants have cheated the Plaintiff and the
members registered with the Plaintiff Union working with Defendant
No.1 are required to be established on record by leading appropriate,
oral and documentary evidence. The fact that the members of the
Plaintiff Union were not informed about the recitals of the document on
which the signatures have been taken has to be proved by leading
appropriate, oral and documentary evidence. As such, at this juncture,
merely for asking the directions for the grant of permanent alternate
premises, monthly compensation and constructions cannot be given as
the documents are against the Plaintiff. Hence, Plaintiff failed to make
out any case for grant of temporary relief as prayed in the Notice of
Motion. Accordingly, I pass the following Order.
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion is dismissed.
-- 3 of 5 --
N. M. No. 1434/2019 ... 4 … Order
2. Accordingly, Notice of Motion No.1434/2019 stands disposed off.
DATE: - 08.09.2025 (A. C. DAGA)
JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT,
GR. MUMBAI.
Dictated on : 08.09.2025
Transcribed on : 08.09.2025
Checked on : 08.09.2025
Signed on : 08.09.2025
-- 4 of 5 --
N. M. No. 1434/2019 ... 5 … Order
"CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER"
DATE: 09.09.2025, AT 05.50 P. M. Siddhesh S. Shirke
STENOGRAPHER (GRADE-I)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court
no.) :
SHRI A. C. DAGA
(C. R. NO. 61)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/Order : 08.09.2025
Judgment/Order signed by the P.
O. on : 08.09.2025
Judgment/Order uploaded on : 09.09.2025
-- 5 of 5 --