Chandrabhushan S/O Dattatraya ... vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2062 Bom

                                                           1                                    judg. wp 1918.16.odt 




                                                                                                          
                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
                                       NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.




                                                                               
                                                   Writ Petition No.1918 of 2016.




                                                                              
                      Chandrabhushan Dattatraya Ghangargunde,
                      aged about 44 years, R/o.-S.T. Quarter Bus Stand, 
                      Chandrapur.                                                        .... Petitioner
                                                                                            Original Complainant.




                                                             
                      Versus
                                        
                      Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, 
                                       
                      through its Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C. 
                      Chandrapur.                                                        .... Respondent.
                                                                                               Original Respondent.
         


                      Shri C.V. Jagdale, Adv for petitioner.
      



                      Shri V.G. Wankhede, Adv for respondent.

                                                       Coram :  S.B. Shukre, J.

th Dated : 29 April, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent.

2] In the complaint filed under Section 28 read with Item 9 of

Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and

Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, the petitioner in

2 judg. wp 1918.16.odt

paragraph no.3 had made a specific averment that he was a

workman. The reply filed to the complaint by the respondent did

not specifically deny the fact that the petitioner was a workman.

Yet, the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Chandrapur, by

the impugned order, suo motu raised the issue as to whether or not

the complainant was a workman and decided the same in the

negative way. The learned Member of the Industrial Court,

Chandrapur, then went on to hold that the petitioner did not make

out any prima facie case for grant of any interim relief. The fact of

the matter is that the petitioner being a workman is a position

undisputed in this case. That being so, I do not understand as to

why the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Chandrapur

thought it fit to raise the issue and decide it. Even if the issue was

to be raised, it ought to have been decided in accordance with the

settled principles of law. In the case of Nashik Merchants' Coop.

Bank Ltd., Nashik and another and Madhukar Bhaurao Hingmire

and another, reported at 2013 (136) FLR 730, the Division Bench

of this Court has held that when such an issue is involved it raises

a question of fact and law and, therefore, it must be framed

specifically and dealt with accordingly by granting full opportunity

to the parties to prove or disprove the same. In such a case, if

required, the parties have also to be allowed to lead evidence.

3 judg. wp 1918.16.odt

Instead of adopting such a procedure, the learned Member of the

Industrial Court, Chandrapur has summarily rejected the

application for interim relief only on the ground that the petitioner

has failed to prove that he is a workman. Such an order, therefore,

cannot be sustained in law.

3] In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed, The impugned

order is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded

back to the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Chandrapur for

being decided on its own merits in accordance with law. The

application (Exhibit-U-2) shall be decided in accordance with law.

4] Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.

JUDGE

Deshmukh