Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra And Anr vs Vishwanath Daulatrao Bhange on 7 April, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4666 OF 2001
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through petitioner No.2.
2. The Joint Director,
Divisional Agricultural Department,
PETITIONERS
(Extension) Latur.
VERSUS
Vishwanath Daulatrao Bhange,
Age-55 years, Occu-Nil,
R/o Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist.Latur RESPONDENT
Mr.A.P.Basarkar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Chetan T.Jadhav h/f Mr.K.M.Nagarkar, Advocate for the
respondent
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 07/04/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. This matter was Admitted by order dated 26/11/2001 and
interim relief was granted in terms of prayer clause "C" which reads
as under :-
"Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition the
execution and operation of impugned judgment and order dated
19/03/2001 passed by the Ld. Judge, Labour Court at Latur in
khs/April 2016/4666-d
Complaint (ULP) No.23/1999 may kindly be stayed."
2. I have heard the learned AGP on behalf of the petitioners and
Mr. Jadhav h/f Mr.K.M.Nagarkar on behalf of the sole respondent, at
length.
3. Peculiar facts are noticed in this matter as under :-
[a]
The impugned judgment of the Labour Court dated
19/03/2001 thereby allowing Complaint (ULP) No.23/1999 has
been directly challenged in this Court without exhausting the
remedy of revisional jurisdiction of this Court u/s 44 of the
MRTU and PULP Act, 1977.
[b] After the respondent was convicted in relation to the suicide of
his wife u/s 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and
convicted for 3 years by the Trial Court and then by this Court
on 30/07/1996, the petitioner terminated the services of the
respondent by order dated 05/11/1999 to be made effective
retrospectively from 12/11/1990.
[c] The respondent has been in service from 1965 till 28/09/1998
despite his conviction.
4. Ordinarily, considering the law laid down by this Court in
several matters and in the matter of Engineering Employees Union Vs.
Devidayal Rolling and Refinaries Pvt.Ltd., 1986 (52) FLR 40 = 1986
Mh.L.J. 331, this petition would not have been entertained since the
khs/April 2016/4666-d
statutory remedy u/s 44 has not been availed of. However, I am not
remitting the petitioners to the revisional jurisdiction of the
Industrial Court since this matter is pending final adjudication for
almost 15 years.
5. The learned Division Bench of this Court in the matter of
Aasaram Raibhan Dhage Vs. Executive Engineer, 1989 (2) CLR 331,
has laid down the law that termination with retrospective effect, be it
of a daily wager or temporary or probationer or a permanent
employee, is unforeseen in law and is unsustainable. Needless to
state, the order of termination issued by the petitioners on
05/11/1999 making it retrospectively effective from 12/11/1990,
therefore, is unsustainable and is quashed and set aside.
6. It is equally well settled that on conviction of an employee for
an offence punishable under the IPC or for that reason under any
Law, entitles the employer to terminate the services of such an
employee purely on the ground of his conviction. In the instant case,
the respondent was convicted by judgment dated 12/11/1990 by the
learned Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case No.121/1990 holding
him guilty for abetting the suicidal death of his wife. By judgment
dated 30/07/1996, this Court sustained the conviction in Criminal
khs/April 2016/4666-d
Appeal No.309/1990. Conviction of the respondent would, therefore,
lead to his termination without the requirement of conducting any
enquiry.
7. In the light of the above, the termination of the respondent
therefore could have been deemed to be effective from 13/07/1996.
However, since the respondent has actually worked till 28/09/1998,
his termination from service shall therefore be deemed to be effective
from 28/09/1998 as he was not on duty thereafter till 05/11/1999.
8. In the light of the above, this petition is partly allowed. The
impugned judgment of the Labour Court dated 19/03/2001 granting
full back wages from 28/09/1998 till 31/03/2000 is quashed and set
aside. The complaint (ULP) No.23/1999 is, therefore, dismissed.
9. Nevertheless, since the respondent has raised an issue of his
retiral benefits which is being opposed by the petitioners on the
ground that the termination can be said to be on account of moral
turpitude, I am not required to deal with the said issue in this
petition.
10. As such, in the event the respondent raises the said issue of
khs/April 2016/4666-d
payment of his retiral benefits before any competent authority, the
same shall be considered by the said authority on its own merits and
in accordance with Law.
11. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
ig ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/April 2016/4666-d
