Satish Narayanrao Deshmukh vs Medical Superintendent Regional ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1374 Bom

            J-wp360.16.odt                                                                                                1/3    


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                                            
                                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR




                                                                              
                                        WRIT PETITION No.360 OF 2016


            Satish Narayanrao Deshmukh,




                                                                             
            Age 52 years, Occupation : Service,
            R/o. Siddheshwar Colony, Amravati,
            Tq. and Distt. Amravati.                                                    :      PETITIONER

                               ...VERSUS...




                                                          
            1.    Medical Superintendent,
                                 
                   Regional Referral Super-specialty
                   Hospital, in the camput of District
                   Woman Hospital, Amravati, 
                                
                   Tq. And Distt. Amravati.

            2.    Deputy Director of Health Services,
                   Akola Circle Akola, Distt. Akola.                                     :      RESPONDENTS
      


            =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
   



            Mr. A.J. Kadu, Advocate for the Petitioner.
            Ms. T.H. Udeshi, Asstt. Government Pleader for the Respondents.
            =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-





                                                          CORAM  :   S.B. SHUKRE, J.

th DATE : 11 APRIL, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally by consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

J-wp360.16.odt 2/3

3. It is seen from the impugned order dated 6.1.2016

passed below Exh. U-2 that the learned Member of the Industrial

Court has rejected the application only on the ground that at this

stage of the case, it is not possible for him to decide whether the

petitioner has the knowledge of the computer or not. Learned

Member has observed that unless the reasons given by the employer

for not giving charge of the Pharmacy is proved to be false, no

interim relief as sought for by and petitioner can be granted. While

holding so, it appears that the learned Member has not at all

considered the certificate issued by the C.E.D.T., Aurangabad in

favour of the petitioner on 20.10.1999 which prima facie discloses

that the petitioner has successfully undergone training for operation

of the computer. It is seen that the learned Member of the

Industrial Court has not applied his mind to this certificate. After

all the petitioner is senior-most Pharmacy Officer and being so,

would have a legitimate expectation that his seniority is duly

recognized by putting him in place of responsibility. Even the

Office Circular issued by the Joint Director of Health Services, Pune

places importance to the seniority of the Pharmacy Officer and that

is the reason why, it has been instructed therein that whenever

there are more than one Pharmacist/compounder in an

J-wp360.16.odt 3/3

establishment, one who is senior-most amongst them should be

chosen for being made incharge of the Pharmacy. Therefore, the

learned Member of the Industrial Court would have to carefully

consider the issue involved in the application vide Exh.U-2 by

applying his mind to the material available on record and making

prima facie conclusions accordingly. The impugned order, in these

circumstances cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the matter

deserves to be remanded back for fresh consideration.

4. The writ petition is allowed.

5. The impugned order dated 6.1.2016 is hereby quashed

and set aside.

6. The matter is sent back to the Industrial Court for

deciding the application Exh.U-2 afresh in accordance with law.

7. The application shall be decided within 15 days from the

date of appearance of the parties before the Tribunal.

8. The parties to appear before the Tribunal on 25th April,

2016 at 11.00 a.m.

9. Rule is made absolute in these terms.

JUDGE okMksns