Subhash Ganpat Sonar vs Jalgaon Municipal Corporation ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1994 Bom

                                                                                 WP/852/2016
                                                 1

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                               
                                   WRIT PETITION NO. 852 OF 2016




                                                       
     Subhash Ganpat Sonar,
     age 53 years, Occ. Service,
     R/o C/o Pramod Gangadhar
     Wankhede, Group No.95,




                                                      
     Plot No.3, Siddhi Vinayak Colony,
     Asawanagar, Pimprala,
     Jalgaon.                                                    ..Petitioner

     Versus




                                            
     Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
                             
     Jalgaon, through its Commissioner
     Jalgaon.                                                    ..Respondent

                                              ...
                            
               Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Jagtap V.B.h/f Shri Sapkal V.D.
                       Advocate for Respondent : Shri Gunale V.D.
                                              ...
      

                                   CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Dated: April 28, 2016 ...

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.

2. Rule.

3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is

taken up for final disposal.

4. This Court had considered the submissions of the petitioner on

25.1.2016 and had recorded the same as under:-

WP/852/2016

"1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 04/12/2015 by which his Complaint (ULP) No.18/2014

has been dismissed without even framing any issue.

2. The petitioner points out that in paragraph No.7 of the

complaint, it was specifically contended that the enquiry has been conducted in defiance of the principles of natural justice and though the witnesses of the respondent have deposed in favour of the

petitioner, the Enquiry Officer has erroneously concluded that the charges levelled upon the petitioner are proved. The enquiry was,

therefore, sought to be set aside and so also the findings of the Enquiry Officer for being perverse. A similar prayer in paragraph

No.18(B) has also been set aside.

3. It is, therefore, submitted that the Industrial Court has short

circuited the procedure in dismissing the complaint.

4. I find that the Apex Court in case of Workmen of the Motipur Sugar Factory Private Ltd., Vs. The Motipur Sugar Factory Private Ltd., [AIR 1965 SCC 1803] has held that where there is a challenge to

the domestic enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer, these two issues need to be framed. This Court has recently considered the entire law on this point in its judgment in the matter of MSRTC

Beed Vs. Syed Saheblal Syed Nizam, 2014(3) CLR 547 = 2014(4) Mh.L.J. 687 thereby mandating framing of the two issues with regard to the fairness of the enquiry and findings of the Enquiry Officer.

5. I, ex facie, find that the law has not been followed by the Industrial Court while dealing with the said complaint filed by the petitioner."

WP/852/2016

5. I have heard Shri Jagtap and Shri Gunale, learned Advocates for the

respective parties at length.

6. I have considered the proceedings before the Industrial Court.

7. It is apparent that the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme

Court in the case of Motipura Sugar Factory (supra) and the view taken by

this Court in the matter of MSRTC Beed (supra), has not been followed by

the Industrial Court.

8. Considering the challenge put forth by the employee against the

enquiry and the findings of the enquiry officer, the Industrial Court was

obliged to cast two issues and decide the said two issues peremptorily so as

to arrive at its Part I judgment, which is not an interlocutory order.

9. Since the Industrial Court has failed to do so, the impugned

judgment, dated 4.12.2015, delivered by the Industrial Court, Jalgaon is

quashed and set aside. Complaint (ULP) No.18 of 2014 is remitted back to

the Industrial Court for framing of the two issues. The said two issues shall

be decided by the Industrial Court purely on the basis of the original record

and proceedings in the domestic enquiry in the light of the ratio laid down

by this Court in the matter of Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton

Growers Marketing Federation Ltd. & another Vs. Vasant Ambadas

Deshpande [2014 MLJ 339 : 2014 I CLR 878].

WP/852/2016

10. It is expected that the Industrial Court shall deal with the complaint

after going through the ratio laid down in the matter of Motipura Sugar

Factory (supra) and the view taken by this Court in the matter of MSRTC

Beed (supra), and Vasant Ambadas Deshpande (supra).

11. The litigating sides shall appear before the Industrial Court on

6.6.2015. Formal notices need not be issued. The respondent / management

shall produce the entire original record and proceedings of the domestic

enquiry said to have been conducted against the petitioner before the

Industrial Court expeditiously and in any case before 18.6.2016.

12. Writ Petition, therefore, stands partly allowed and the Rule is made

partly absolute in the above terms.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ...

akl/d