Bombay High Court
Ashok S/O Vasantrao Sontakke vs Maharashtra State Cooperative ... on 13 July, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
Judgment wp240.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 240 OF 2015.
Ashok s/o Vasantrao Sontakke,
Aged about 56 years, resident of Ram
Nagar, Near Dutt mandir, Wardha,
Tehsil and District Wardha.
ig .... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton
Growers Marketing Federation Limited,
Ajni Square Wardha Road, Nagpur
through its Managing Director.
2. Learned Member,
Industrial Court, Nagpur,
Labour-Industrial Building,
Civil Lines, Nagpur. .... RESPONDENTS .
-----------------------------------
Mr. A.R. Patil, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. W.G. Paunikar, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.
Respondent No.2 - Served.
------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:12:35 :::
Judgment wp240.15
2
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR , J.
DATE : JULY 13, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT.
Rule. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the
parties.
2.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the Industrial Court
dated 22.01.2014, whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed
by observing that the grievance raised therein pertains to the punishment
imposed on 06.12.1989, and delay in that regard was not condoned. It is
the case of the petitioner that he was holding the post of Junior Grader and
during the course of service, inquiry proceedings were initiated against him.
Pursuant to these proceedings, punishment of stoppage of increments came
to be imposed. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint under
Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention
of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Along with the said complaint, an
application for condonation of delay was also filed. The Industrial Court
condoned the delay in filing the complaint on 13.09.2011. While deciding
the complaint on merits, the Industrial Court observed that the petitioner
was punished for the first time on 06.12.1989 which gave rise to the cause
Judgment wp240.15
of action, and the delay in that regard had not been condoned. It therefore,
proceeded to dismiss the complaint on merits.
3. Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in
the complaint, grievance had been raised with regard to the manner in
which the inquiry proceedings had been hastily completed. He submitted
that the punishment imposed from 06.12.1989 onwards had been
subsequently challenged in the complaint. As the delay has been condoned
by order dated 13.09.2011, the complaint ought to have been adjudicated
on merits. No issue was framed on the aspect regarding fairness of the
inquiry, instead the learned Member of the Industrial Court proceeded to
consider the punishment imposed on 06.12.1989 and thereafter dismissed
the complaint on the ground that the same was filed belatedly. He also
challenged the findings recorded by the Tribunal on merits.
4. Shri Paunikar, the learned Counsel for respondent no.1 supported
the impugned order. According to him, as the petitioner had failed to make
out any case of unfair labour practice at the hands of the respondent, the
complaint was rightly dismissed. He therefore, submitted that there was no
case to interfere in writ jurisdiction.
Judgment wp240.15
5. I have heard the respective counsel for the parties at length and
given due consideration to their respective submissions. The prayers in the
complaint clearly indicate that the punishments imposed on 06.12.1989 and
thereafter were challenged. The Industrial Court by order dated 13.09.2011
condoned the delay in filing the said complaint. Once, the delay in filing the
complaint was condoned, there was no reason whatsoever for the learned
Member to again observe that as the cause of action arose on 06.12.1989,
the complaint was barred by limitation. These observations run contrary to
the order condoning the delay.
6. It is also to be noted that in the complaint in paragraph no.6, it
was the specific case of the petitioner that the inquiry proceedings were
vitiated on the count of breach of principles of natural justice. This fact was
denied by the respondent. However, no issue came to be framed by the
Tribunal in that regard. This is one more aspect that has vitiated the
impugned judgment.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned judgment cannot be
sustained. Hence, the judgment dated 22.01.2014 in Complaint ULPA No.
320/2011, is quashed and set aside. The proceedings are restored to the
file of the Industrial Court for being decided afresh on merits and in the light
Judgment wp240.15
of the observations made herein above. As the complaint pertains to the
year 2011, the same shall be decided expeditiously by the Industrial Court.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Rgd.
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this judgment/order uploaded is a true and
correct copy of original signed judgment/order.
Uploaded by : R.G. Dhuriya. Uploaded on : 15.07.2016
