Nathu Chindhu Naukarkar vs Member, Industrial Court, & Anr
2015 Latest Caselaw 328 Bom

Citation : 2015 Latest Caselaw 328 Bom
Judgement Date : 11 September, 2015

Bombay High Court

Nathu Chindhu Naukarkar vs Member, Industrial Court, & Anr on 11 September, 2015

Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande

                                                      1              wp1428.09.odt

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR




                                                                                     
                                                             
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 1428 OF 2009 


                Nathu Chindhu Naukarkar,




                                                            
                aged about 41 years, R/o Sant Kabir Ward,
                Near T.V.Centre, Hinganghat, Tah. Hinganghat,
                District Wardha                               PETITIONER




                                              
                              ig      ...VERSUS...


     1]         Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur.
                            
     2]         Pee Vee Textile Limited,
                Jam, Tah. Samudrapuar, Distt. Wardha,
                through its Manager......                                       RESPONDENTS
      


     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   



     Shri M.V.Mohokar, Advocate, for petitioner
     None for the parties
     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, J.

th DATE : 11 SEPTEMBER, 2015 .

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Shri Mohokar, the learned counsel for the

petitioner. None appears for respondent No.2.



                2]             The petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No. 414 of

                2006,   before   the   Industrial   Court   at   Nagpur,     claiming   the




                                                           2              wp1428.09.odt

              reliefs as under;

"[1] Hold and declare that the respondent has engaged in Unfair Labour Practice under Item 9 Scheduled IV of the ULP Act by nor providing the work from 17.11.2005 and non payment of wages;

[2] quash and set aside the show cause notice dated 27.02.2006 and enquiry proceedings dated 27.03.2006 by holding it as illegal arbitrarily and issued without any cause and in

absence of any mis-conduct on the part of igcomplainant.

[3] Direct the respondent to withdraw the above reported U.L.P permanently and perpetually.

[4] Direct the respondent to provide the work and pay the wages from 17.11.2005 to the complainant till the complainant provide the work and exonerate the complaint from the

misconduct as alleged under Clause 24(6) in the show cause notice dated 27.02.2006.

[4-a] Hold and declare chargesheet dated 12.01.2008 and enquiry therein conducted outsider is illegal and by way of engaging an unfair labour practices under Item 9 of Schedule IV of U.L.P

Act on the part of the respondent, and to quash and set aside the same and exonerated the complainant from the alleged misconduct

[5] Grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deemed fit and proper under the circumstances

and facts of the case and in the interst of justice, equity and fair play".

This complaint was dismissed by the Industrial Court by its

judgment and order dated 21.02.2009 and hence the

employee is before this Court in this writ petition.

                                                          3               wp1428.09.odt

              3]               On 30.04.2009, this Court had passed an order




                                                                                        
              as under;

"It is clear from a perusal of the petition and from hearing the learned counsel for the parties that the order dated 24.02.2009 impugned in this petition cannot be assailed before this Court and

this writ petition is tenable only against the order passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur, on 21 st of February, 2009. The relief sought by the petitioner in prayer clause (ii) is hereby rejected. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to challenge

the order dated 24.02.2009 before the appropriate forum.

Writ petition may be listed for admission/final hearing on 18th of June, 2009."

4] It appears that on 24.02.2009 i.e. after the

decision of the Industrial Court, the petitioner was terminated

from service after holding an enquiry. This court granted the

petitioner liberty to challenge the order of termination before

appropriate forum. In fact, such complaint is filed and

pending for decision. In view of this, it is open for the labour

Court to consider all the challenges to the order of

termination dated 24.02.2009 in a pending complaint. The

question of payment of wages to the petitioner during the

period from 17.11.2005 to 03.06.2008 is also related with his