The Bombay High Court has confirmed that the Chairman of Kinetic Engineering Ltd., Arun Hastimal Firodia, can be held responsible for not following the directions of the Labour Court. The court clarified that those in control of an industrial establishment must ensure that legal orders are followed, even if an appeal is pending and there is no stay on the order.
Justice Y. G. Khobragade delivered the decision while hearing a writ petition filed by Arun Firodia challenging the criminal process issued against him by the Labour Court. The case stems from a complaint by Ramrao Hanumantrao Kandekar, who was dismissed from his job as a machinist at Kinetic Engineering in 1998 after a disciplinary inquiry. Kandekar approached the Labour Court, arguing that his termination amounted to unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act).
Read Also:- Bombay High Court Orders SIT Probe Into Badlapur 'Fake' Encounter Involving Five Policemen
On November 29, 2019, the Labour Court ruled in Kandekar’s favour, stating that his dismissal was unjust. The court ordered Kinetic Engineering to reinstate him with full back wages and all related benefits. Although the company challenged this decision before the High Court through a writ petition, the court refused to grant any interim stay on the Labour Court’s decision.
When the company failed to follow the court’s order, Kandekar issued notices to several officials, including the Chairman, Arun Firodia. However, the notice sent to Firodia was returned as “unclaimed.” As a result, Kandekar filed a criminal complaint under Section 48(1) of the MRTU & PULP Act. On August 6, 2022, the Labour Court took cognizance and initiated criminal proceedings against the accused, including Firodia.
Firodia then approached the High Court, arguing that he could not be held liable since he was not a party to the original complaint and that the Managing Director, not the Chairman, is responsible for the day-to-day functioning of the company under the Factories Act, 1948. His counsel also pointed out that he was a senior citizen facing health issues and that the criminal case was an act of
Read Also:- Bombay High Court Weekly Update (March 31 – April 6, 2025): Major Judgments and Observations
On the other side, Kandekar’s lawyer submitted that since the Labour Court's decision had not been stayed, compliance was mandatory. He further emphasized that the Chairman holds responsibility for managing the company and ensuring such legal directions are implemented. He also stated that Firodia was aware of the court’s decision but chose not to act on it.
“It is not disputed that the Labour Court had set aside the dismissal of Kandekar. Since the High Court did not grant a stay on that order, it remained enforceable.”
“The Chairman of the company, Mr. Firodia, was responsible for the company’s functioning. He was aware of the orders and had received notices. Since the envelope was returned unclaimed, it is deemed to have been served as per Section 27 of the General Clauses Act.”
“In the absence of a stay on the Labour Court’s ruling, there was a duty to comply with the order. The Labour Court rightly initiated process under Section 48(1) of the MRTU & PULP Act.”
As a result, the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Firodia and upheld the criminal process initiated against him. The court held that since he was in charge of the company’s operations, he bore the responsibility to comply with the Labour Court’s directions.
Decided on: March 27, 2025
Neutral Citation: 2025 BHC-AUG 9103 | Arun Hastimal Firodia v. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukkh, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Rakshanda Rajan Jaiswal i/by Mr. Vishal Chavan, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for Respondent No. 1 State; Mr. V. P. Golewar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
