1
wp2265.272.05.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.2265 of 2005
And
Writ Petition No.272 of 2005
Writ Petition No.2265 of 2005
Adarsha Bahuudeshiya Mandal,
Ambedkar Ward,
Bhandara,
through its Secretary -
Shri Manoj s/o Shamrao
Wadibhasme,
R/o Ambedkar Ward,
Bhandara,
Tq. and Distt. Bhandara. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Honourable Industrial Court,
Bhandara,
Tq. and Distt. Bhandara.
2. Honourable Labour Court,
Bhandara,
Tq. and Distt. Bhandara.
3. Shri Hiralal s/o Janardan Inkane,
Aged about 42 years,
Occupation - Service,
R/o Bhandara,
Tah. & Distt. Bhandara. ... Respondents
Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, Assistant Government Pleader for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shri R.S. Parsodkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 00:14:37 :::
2
wp2265.272.05.odt
Writ Petition No.272 of 2005
Adarsha Bahu-Uddeshiya Mandal,
Ambedkar Ward, Bhandara,
through its Secretary,
R/o Ambedkar Wardh,
Bhandara, District-Bhandara. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Hon'ble Industrial Court
at Bhandara.
2. Hiralal Janardan Inkane,
Aged about 40 years,
R/o Narkesari Ward,
Bhandara,
Tahasil & District - Bhandara.
3. Smt. Premabai Shamraoji
Wadibhasme,
Convenor,
Enquiry Committee,
R/o Ambedkar Ward,
Bhandara.
4. Shri S.M. Humne,
Member of Enquiry Committee,
R/o Lakhni, District - Bhandara.
5. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Bhandara. ... Respondents
Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, Assistant Government Pleader for
Respondent Nos.1 and 5.
Shri R.S. Parsodkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 00:14:37 :::
3
wp2265.272.05.odt
Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.
th Date : 4 April, 2017 Oral Judgment :
1. In Complaint (ULP) No.66 of 2004, the Labour Court at Bhandara, decided the preliminary issue on 16-12-2004 regarding the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain, try and decide the complaint under Section 28 read with Item I of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 in view of the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1977 and the rules framed thereunder. The Labour Court held that it has the jurisdiction to try the complaint. The revision preferred against this order, was dismissed by the Industrial Court on 6-1-2005. Hence, this petition by the Management.
2. On 17-12-2004, the Labour Court rejected the application for grant of interim relief, filed in the aforesaid Complaint (ULP) No.66 of 2004. The Industrial Court has ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 00:14:37 ::: 4 wp2265.272.05.odt allowed Revision (ULP) No.64 of 2004 by its judgment and order dated 6-1-2005, setting aside the order of the Labour Court refusing to grant interim relief and restrained the Management from terminating the services or dismissing the complainant from service without following due process of law, as prescribed under Rules 36 and 37 of the MEPS Rules. The Industrial Court has also directed inspection of record by the complainant and completion of enquiry within a stipulated period. This judgment and order dated 6-1-2005 passed by the Industrial Court is the subject-matter of Writ Petition No.272 of 2005 filed by the Management.
3. Shri Mohagaonkar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the Management had terminated about 17 teaching employees from service in the year 1994. Keeping in view the mass termination, the Director of Education appointed an Administrator by an order dated 21-8-1999, which was the subject-matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.3168 of 1999. On 20-3-2001, this Court stayed the order of appointment of the Administrator. The petitioner-Management continued to be in charge of the ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 00:14:37 ::: 5 wp2265.272.05.odt School.
4. Writ Petition No.3168 of 1999 filed by the petitioner-Management challenging the appointment of the Administrator on 21-8-1999 came before this Court for final hearing. On 20-9-2016, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petition finally, recording the statement in the judgment as under :
" In the fitness of things and in the circumstances of the case, it would not be proper to decide the matter on merits. The Administrator has not taken over the charge of the Management of the School and the Management of the Society is managing the School during the past 17 years when this writ petition was pending. If the Teachers or any other employees in the School have any grievance about the management, they are free to make a complaint in that regard to the Education Authorities, which the Education Authorities will be free to decide in accordance with law.
Shri Mohgaonkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that in terms of the statement made by him on 3/2/2005, the petitioner would not continue ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 00:14:37 ::: 6 wp2265.272.05.odt with the enquiries that were initiated against the employees at the relevant time in the year 2004-05 and in whose reference, the statement was made."
5. On 7-8-2004, the statement of allegation was issued to the respondent-Hiralal Janardan Inkane, and an enquiry was initiated against him, which ultimately culminated into issuance of the communication dated 17-12-2004 by the petitioner-Management, intimating him that on 22-12-2004, a meeting is proposed to be held to take the decision on the question of punishment to be imposed upon the said respondent. This was the subject-matter of challenge in Complaint (ULP) No.66 of 2004. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of all these proceedings, the respondent-Hiralal Janardan Inkane continued to work on the post of Clerk and he is still working on the said post. He is getting regular salary on the said post.
6. The parties are bound by the aforesaid statement. The respondent-Hiralal Janardan Inkane is continued in service, and in view of the aforesaid statement made before this Court ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 00:14:37 ::: 7 wp2265.272.05.odt in Writ Petition No.3168 of 1999, the enquiry initiated against the said respondent stands dropped.
7. In view of this, it is not necessary for this Court to decide the academic issues involved in the matter. Needless to say that it is always open for the petitioner-Management to conduct an enquiry and take an action against the respondent-Hiralal Janardan Inkane for the charges other than those in the show cause notice dated 7-8-2004, if it is found that any act of misconduct is committed by him after 2004-05.
8. With these observations, the petitions stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
Judge.
Lanjewar,PS ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 00:14:37 :::