Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4780 (BOM)

CLARIANT CHEMICALS INDIA LTD THRU AUTHORIZED AND ORS v. MANGESH KRISHNA MORE AND ORS

WP/10705/2026 · 2026-08-25

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Renuka 7-WP-10705-2026.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10705 OF 2026 Clariant Chemicals India Ltd Through Authorized representatives and Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. Mangesh Krishna More and Ors. ...Respondents ________________ Ms. Satyapriya Rao i/b Mr. Vaibhav P. Patankar (through VC) for Petitioner. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 25 AUGUST 2026. P.C.: 1) By this Petition, Petitioners have challenged the reference order dated 10 September 2015. 2) It must be observed at the very outset that the Petition is filed after gross delay and laches. The reference is made by order dated 10 September 2015. The Petitioners have participated in the reference. In fact today, Writ Petition No. 10644 of 2026 was listed in which order dated 15 April 2026 on application filed at Exh-C-21 was under challenge. By that Application, Petitioners had sought impleadment of contractors to the reference. Having participated in the reference for so long, Petitioners now want to question existence of industrial dispute Page No. 1 of 2 25 August 2026 2026:BHC-AS:35242 Renuka 7-WP-10705-2026.docx and now are seeking a challenge to the reference order dated 10 September 2015. 3) It is sought to be contended that the Respondents were never employees of the Petitioners and that they were employees of the contractors. However, it is an admitted position that by notice dated 25 June 2010, Petitioners had proposed grant of regular appointments to the employees of the contractors. The Respondents are left out on account of their alleged medical unfitness. 4) It is the case of the Petitioners that Respondent suffered from colour blindness and were therefore not absorbed to the service. Therefore, the dispute relates to demand of the Respondents for absorption in the service of the Petitioners. It therefore cannot be contended that the Petitioners are not concerned with the dispute as such. 5) Writ Petition is totally baseless and the same is accordingly rejected. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 2 of 2 25 August 2026 Signed by: Renuka S Thakur Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 28/08/2026 10:36:27