Summary: On December 1, 2025, the Bombay High Court, led by Judge Milind N. Jadhav, made a decision in a case involving Venco Research and Breeding Farm Private Limited and Rashtriya Shramik Aghadi about a disagreement over the firing of poultry farm workers in Satara.
The Dispute Begins:
The case started when Venco Research and Breeding Farm, a company running poultry farms in Satara, faced a strike by 91 workers on August 9, 2004. The workers, represented by Rashtriya Shramik Aghadi, held a hunger strike at Venkateshwar House, Pune, asking for better working conditions.
Initial Actions:
On August 28, 2004, Venco sent letters asking workers to come back to work, but got no response. In April 2005, workers tried to return but were not allowed. Rashtriya Shramik Aghadi asked for them to be rehired, but this was refused, leading to a failed negotiation reported on July 29, 2005.
Labor Court's Decision:
The disagreement was taken to the Labor Court in Satara, which on April 22, 2014, ordered Venco to rehire 12 workers and give one worker back pay. Venco challenged this decision, saying it was based on false information and mistakes in the process.
Arguments from Venco:
Venco argued that the strike was not justified, as it was based on false claims about a shooting incident by a security guard. They said no workers were fired and that warning notices were given without actually firing anyone.
Judge’s Observations:
Judge Milind N. Jadhav noted that the shooting incident, which was said to be the reason for the strike, happened 10 months earlier and was not related. The court found no proof of official firing and criticized Rashtriya Shramik Aghadi for making misleading claims.
Final Judgment:
The court canceled the labor court's order to rehire the workers, finding that Venco had not fired them. Instead, it told Venco to pay each of the 13 workers ₹7,50,000, recognizing that the company did not follow proper firing procedures.
Summary of the Verdict:
The court decided that even though the workers were not officially fired, they should receive money because Venco did not follow the right process. This decision provides financial relief for the workers and points out the company's procedural mistakes.
