1 / 3 16.wp6590.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6590 OF 2026 MAH. STATE COOPERATIVE TRIBUNAL DEVELOPMENT CORP., THR. GENERAL MANAGER, AND ORS. VS MADHUKAR NAMDEO PENDAM, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. D.P. Bhongade, Advocate for petitioners. CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 31.08.2026 Heard. 2. The present writ petition challenges a judgment of the learned Labour Court passed in Complaint (ULP) No.145/2022 dated 12.01.2026. 3. Vide the said judgment, the learned Labour Court has allowed the complaint filed by the respondent herein and declared that the petitioners i.e. employers are engaged in unfair labour practice under Item 1(a) and 1(b) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short MRTU and PULP Act). It is further directed that the respondents are to seize and desist from the unfair labour practice. The labour Court has also set Prity 2 / 3 16.wp6590.2026 aside the order of termination/dismissal dated 23.11.2022 with a further direction to reinstate the respondents with continuity in service. 4. It is a matter of record that the said judgment of the Labour Court has been directly assailed in the present writ petition. When confronted, the learned counsel for the petitioner places across the Bench, a copy of judgment of this Court reported in 2011(1) Mh.L.J. 726, Bhojraj s/o Narayan Parate Vs. Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Nagpur and more particularly, paragraph 7 thereof. The said para provides for the scope and jurisdiction of Section 44 of the Industrial Court. The proposition in the said para cannot be disputed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners also places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.10454/2024, M/s. J.Fibre Corporation Vs. Shri Maruti Harishchandra Amrute and ors., decided on 05.03.2025, more particularly, paragraph 6 thereof, by pointing me out the said para, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the employee therein had already crossed the age of retirement and therefore, there is no question of his reinstatement. The Court held that this fact has not been appreciated by the Labour Court. However, in the said matter, neither there Prity 3 / 3 16.wp6590.2026 is any objection raised regarding existence of alternate remedy as contemplated under Section 44 of the said Act nor it has been dealt with. 6. The contention raised regarding the scope and ambit of Section 44 and the power of the Industrial Court for not granting compensation in view of the fact that the concerned employee had already stood superannuated due to he being over age, cannot be taken into consideration. Firstly, because such defence was never raised before the Labour Court and secondly, in my considered opinion that can always be a subject ground for the present petitioner while assailing the judgment of the Labour Court, if he chooses to. 7. In that view of the matter, both these judgments are not applicable in the present case. However, without going into the merits of the matter since there is an alternate remedy exists in the form of Section 44, the petitioners are free to avail that alternate remedy. 8. With these observations, the petition is rejected. [ NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. ] Prity Signed by: Mrs. Prity Gabhane Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 02/09/2026 17:47:42