Bombay High Court
Bhagwan S/O Daulat Dandale vs Rahemkhan Umarkhan on 28 July, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp5963.06.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5963 OF 2006
1. Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Wardha Division, Wardha.
2. Range Forest Officer,
Hingna, Tahsil and Distt. Wardha.
ig .... PETITIONERS.
// VERSUS //
Hanumanta Vithoba Atram,
Aged Major, Occ. Service,
R/o. Hingni, C/o. Range Forest
Officer, Hingni, Tahsil & Distt. Wardha.
.... RESPONDENT
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri A.D.Sonak, A.G.P. for Petitioners-Employer.
Shri V.D.Raut, Advocate for Respondent-Employee.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : JULY 07, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. The services of the respondent-employee were regularized by
the order dated 28th February, 1996. On 28th January, 1997 show cause
notice was given to the employee calling his explanation as to why the order
Judgment 2 wp5963.06.odt
dated 28th February, 1996 should not be withdrawn. The employee filed
complaint before the Industrial Court challenging the show cause notice
dated 28th January, 1997. The Industrial Court, by the impugned order, has
quashed the show cause notice. The employer has filed this petition
challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court. While issuing notice
before admission on 24th January, 2007 this Court granted stay to the effect
and operation of the order passed by the Industrial Court.
The petition was again taken for further hearing on admission
and interim order on 10th December, 2007 on which date Rule was issued
and the interim order was refused. The employer had filed Letters Patent
Appeal challenging the order passed on 10th December, 2007 by which the
prayer for interim relief was rejected. The Letters Patent Appeal came to be
dismissed.
3. The learned A.G.P. and the learned advocate for the employee
state that the employee continued in the employment of the petitioners and
departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, pursuant to
which the employee was compulsorily retired.
It is stated that the employee had filed complaint before the
Industrial Court challenging the order of compulsory retirement and this
complaint is allowed on 13th January, 2016. It is submitted that the order of
Judgment 3 wp5963.06.odt
compulsory retirement is set aside and as the employee attained the age of
superannuation on 30th April, 2014 i.e. during the pendency of the
complaint before the Industrial Court, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards
compensation is granted to the employee calculating the compensation
considering that the employee had 41 months' service left at the time when
he was compulsorily retired.
4.
In the above facts, in my view, it would not be appropriate to
set aside the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court. The employee
continued in the employment of the petitioners since 1st October, 1989 till he
was compulsorily retired on 24th September, 2010 and because of the order
passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint ULP No. 522 of 2010 it has to be
treated that the employee continued in the employment of the petitioners till
he attained the age of superannuation on 30th April, 2014. The order passed
by the Industrial Court quashing show cause notice dated 28th January, 1997
does not require any interference.
The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to
bear their own costs.
JUDGE
RRaut..
Judgment 4 wp5963.06.odt
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of
original signed Judgment.
Uploaded by : R.B.Raut, PS
Uploaded on : 16/07/2016.
