Bombay High Court
Pankaj S/O Ramrao Jadhav vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ... on 14 June, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp3262.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3262/2016
Pankaj s/o Ramrao Jadhav,
aged about 26 Yrs.,
R/o Beldari, Po. Dongargaon,
Tah. Mahagaon, Distt. Chandrapur. ..Petitioner.
(Ori. Complainant)
..Versus..
1. Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, through its Divisional Controller,
Tukumb Road, Chandrapur.
2. Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, through its Divisional
Traffic Superintendent, Tukumb
Road, Chandrapur. ..Respondents.
(Ori. Respondents)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------
Shri C.V. Jagdale, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri V.G. Wankhede, Advocate for the respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 14.6.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri C.V. Jagdale, Advocate for the petitioner - employee and Shri
V.G. Wankhede, Advocate for the respondents - employer.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner filed complaint under Section 28 read with Item I of Schedule
IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour
2 wp3262.16
Practices Act, 1971 (for short "Act of 1971") challenging the order of dismissal.
Along with complaint, the petitioner filed an application under Section 30(2) of the
Act of 1971 for interim relief. The Labour Court granted interim relief by the order
dated 27th August, 2015. The respondents being aggrieved by the above order
passed by the Labour Court filed revision which is allowed by the Industrial Court by
the impugned order. As the petitioner continued in the employment in view of
interim order passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner had filed an application after
disposal of the revision by the Industrial Court, praying that the order passed in
revision be kept in abeyance to enable the petitioner to take appropriate steps in the
matter. The Industrial Court protected the petitioner and directed that the show
cause notice issued by the respondents shall not be given effect to till 15 th June,
2016.
It is admitted before this Court that the petitioner continues in the
employment.
With the assistance of the learned Advocates for the respective parties, I
have examined the documents placed on the record of the petition and I have gone
through the orders passed by the subordinate Courts. I find that the Labour Court
properly appreciated the evidence on the record, prima facie, and granted interim
relief in favour of the petitioner. The Industrial Court while exercising revisional
jurisdiction has reversed the order passed by the Labour Court, by taking a different
view without recording that the view taken by the Labour Court was not possible or
3 wp3262.16
was perverse.
In the above circumstances, I find that the order passed by the Industrial
Court is unsustainable.
Hence, the following order:
(i) The impugned order is set aside.
(ii) The order passed by the Labour Court is restored.
(iii) The interim order granted by the Labour Court shall continue till disposal of
the complaint by the Labour Court.
(iv) Rule made absolute in above terms.
In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
