Bombay High Court
Shri Shantaramji Akaramji ... vs Union Of India & 2 Ors on 8 December, 2009
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 3794/01 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No. 3794/2001
Shri Shantaramji Akaramji Mukhare,
Aged about 62 years, R/o 'Ashok'
State Bank of India Employees Colony
Opposite Ayurvaed College, Chatri
Talao Road, Amravati. .. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.
2. Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)
Seminary Hills, Nagpur.
3. State Bank of India through
its Assistant General Manager,
Region-V, Zonal Office,
S.V. Patel Marg, Nagpur. .. RESPONDENTS
Mrs. Jaishree Rao, counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs. Anjali A. Joshi, counsel for the respondent no.2.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A.NAIK, J.
th
DATE : 8 DECEMBER, 2009.
ORAL JUDGMENT
By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by
the respondent no.1 on 14.02.2000 holding that the dispute was not fit
for adjudication as the claim made by the petitioner was frivolous and
was interlocutory to a case before the Court of Special Judge at
Amravati.
WP 3794/01 2 Judgment
2. The petitioner was working as a clerk with the respondent
no.3. The petitioner was promoted as a Head Clerk and a charge-sheet
was issued against him for passing some improper withdrawals. The
petitioner was charge-sheeted and after holding a Departmental Enquiry
against him, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner
approached the appellate authority for reinstating the petitioner in service
and for setting aside the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The
Appellate Authority, however, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner raised a dispute before the Assistant
Labour Commissioner, Nagpur. It appears that the Conciliation Officer
sent a report of failure of conciliation to the respondent no.1 and the
respondent no.1 issued the order dated 14.02.2000 stating therein that
the Ministry did not consider the dispute fit for adjudication. The order
dated 14.02.2000 is impugned by the instant petition.
4. Mrs. Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted
that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent no.1 was
not justified in refusing to make a reference of the dispute on the ground
that the claim was frivolous and was interlocutory to the case before the
Special Judge, Amravati. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the Criminal proceedings and the Departmental
WP 3794/01 3 Judgment
proceedings were distinct and separate and in the instant case, the
respondent no.1 could not have held that the claim was interlocutory to a
case before the Court of Special Judge, Amravati. Since the petitioner
was dismissed after holding a Departmental Enquiry, the petitioner raised
a genuine dispute and according to the petitioner, the respondent no.1
was not justified in holding that the claim was frivolous.
5. Mrs. Joshi, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1
and 2, supported the order passed by the respondent no.1 on 14.02.2000
and submitted that the respondent no.1 had ample powers to refuse to
make a reference it it was found that the case was frivolous. The learned
counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 sought for the dismissal of the
writ petition.
6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the
parties and also perused the impugned order dated 14.02.2000. On a
perusal of the same it is clear that the respondent no.1 had refused to
make a reference by taking into account the considerations which were
irrelevant or foreign. It could not have been said that the claim was
interlocutory to the case before the Special Judge, Amravati as the
Criminal Proceedings and the Departmental Proceedings were distinct
and separate and the petitioner could have very well raised the dispute in
WP 3794/01 4 Judgment
regard to his dismissal before the authorities. The cryptic reasons
recorded by the respondent no.1 for holding that the dispute was not fit
for adjudication are surely irrelevant for deciding or considering whether
the dispute was fit for adjudication. It would be useful to refer to the
decision reported in 2008(2) Mh.L.J. 66 (Wyeth Employees Union Versus
Araine Orgachem Pvt. Ltd. & others) and relied on by the counsel for the
petitioner, in this regard.
7.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned
order passed by the respondent no.1 on 14.02.2000 is hereby quashed
and set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent no.1 for
reconsidering whether the dispute is fit for adjudication. The respondent
no.1 is, however, directed to complete the exercise and pass the necessary
order within a period of six months from the date of this order.
8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to
costs.
JUDGE
APTE
