Bombay High Court
M.S.R.T.C.,A'Nagar vs Mah.S.T.Kamgar Sanghatana on 25 August, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/5312/1995
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5312 OF 1995
Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation,
Through Divisional Controller,
Ahmednagar. ..Petitioner
Versus
Maharashtra S.T.Kamgar
Sangathana, Ahmednagar,
Bus Stand, Ahmednagar,
Raj Chambers, Near Kothala
through Divisional Secretary. ..Respondent
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri M.K.Goyanka
Advocate for Respondent : Shri S.N. Boiwar
h/f Shri R.L. Chintalwar
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: August 25, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. Learned Advocate for the respondent submits that this
petition has become infructuous, considering the fact that the
complaint that was filed by the respondent- Union on behalf of
Shri D.D.Kahane, before the Industrial Court and which is
pending, was for challenging his earlier termination. Shri
D.D.Kahane has been again dismissed on 8.7.1999.
WP/5312/1995
2. Since he was acquitted by the Sessions Court, Shrirampur
in 1998, he had challenged his termination in Complaint (ULP)
No.79 of 1999, which was partly allowed and he was
reappointed on 21.2.2003. The said order of the Labour Court
is said to be sub-judice in Revision (ULP) No.49 of 2003 before
the Industrial Court.
3.
Notwithstanding the above, the impugned orders dated
3.5.1995, 8.5.1995 and 25.7.1995, in Complaint (ULP) Nos.257
of 1995, are in relation to the proposed termination of Shri
Devidas Kahane, who is represented by the Union in the
Complaint. In fact, by order dated 8.5.1995, the Industrial
Court directed the petitioner to temporarily withdraw the
termination order dated 3.5.1995 and thereafter, directed the
petitioner to continue Shri Kahane in service.
4. The Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of
Hindustan Lever Vs. Ashok Vishnu Kate [AIR 1996 SC 285 = 1995
(6) SCC 326], has concluded that any proposed termination or
apprehended termination can be challenged under item (1) of
Schedule IV of the the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions
WP/5312/1995
and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ("the 1971
Act ") before the Labour Court.
5. This Court in the matter of National General Mazdoor
Union Vs. Nitin Castings [1990 II CLR 641], has concluded that
the Industrial Court's jurisdiction under Section 32 cannot be
enlarged or expanded than what is provided for under the Act
of 1971. As such, considering Sections 4 to 7 of the 1971 Act,
matters pertaining to termination or proposed punishment of
termination / dismissal, cannot be considered by the Industrial
Court under Schedule II or under any of the items of Schedule
IV.
6. As such, this petition is allowed. The impugned three
orders are quashed and set aside. The Industrial Court shall
proceed to decide Complaint (ULP) No.257 of 1995
expeditiously and on priority on/or before the 23.12.2016.
Needless to state, in the event the said Complaint is rendered
infructuous, the litigating sides are at liberty to point out the
same to the Industrial Court and seek disposal of the said
complaint.
WP/5312/1995
7. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
