Bombay High Court
The Superintending Engineer ... vs Kashirao Uttamrao Gite And ... on 13 June, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp3910.14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3910 OF 2014
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Public Works Department, Secretariat
Building, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Division No.2, Sadar, Nagpur.
3. The Sub Divisional Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Sub-Division, Narkhed, Tq.Narkhed,
District : Nagpur.
.... PETITIONERS.
// VERSUS //
1. Kashirao Uttamrao Gite,
Aged about 59 years,
Occupation : Retired Roller Driver,
R/o. Near Rute's Hospital, Ward No.4,
Dhapewada, Post : Dhapewada,
Tq. Kalmeshwar, District : Nagpur.
2. The Member,
Industrial Court, Nagpur.
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri H.N.Prabhu, A.G.P. for Petitioner-Employer.
None for the Respondent.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : JUNE 13, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Judgment 2 wp3910.14.odt
1. Heard learned A.G.P. for the petitioners.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The employer has challenged the order passed by the Industrial
Court allowing the complaint filed by the employee and directing the
employer to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant, which
amount is deducted by the employer as penalty.
4. The employee filed complaint under Section 28 read with Item
9 of the Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 contending that the penalty
of Rs.50,000/- is imposed on him without conducting any enquiry and
without any fault on his part.
5. The case of the employer is that the employee had been
working as driver of Road Roller and as per the instructions he was required
to bring back the Road Roller from the site at Paradsinga, Tahsil : Katol,
District : Nagpur, but it was not brought. It is the case of the employer that
because of the negligence of the employee, the Road Roller was missing.
According to the employer, Shri Mahajan, Junior Engineer is also responsible
for the negligence and penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been recovered from him.
The learned A.G.P. has submitted that the Industrial Court has committed an
error in allowing the complaint on the ground that the employer has not
Judgment 3 wp3910.14.odt
conducted any enquiry overlooking that the punishment is minor punishment
and the enquiry is not required for inflicting it.
6. With the assistance of the learned A.G.P., I have examined the
documents placed on the record of the petition. The Industrial Court has
exhaustively considered the relevant material and has discussed in paragraph
Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the impugned order. Though in normal course, the
enquiry will not be necessary for inflicting minor punishment, as in the facts
of the present case, there are disputed questions and the employee claimed
that there is no fault on his part and he has taken all the steps necessary to
discharge his duty properly and that he was not provided with Battery and
Diesel to enable him to bring back the Road Roller from the site and the
admission given in the cross-examination by the witness examined on behalf
of the employer on these aspects, in my view, penalty could not have been
imposed on the employee without conducting the enquiry.
I do not find any patent illegality or perversity in the impugned
order. I see no reason to interfere with it. The petition is dismissed.
If the amount of Rs.50,000/- ordered to be refunded by the
Industrial Court is not paid to the employee till 1st August, 2016, the
employer shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 22nd March,
2013 i.e. the date on which the Industrial Court passed order.
Judgment 4 wp3910.14.odt
In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
RRaut..
