Madhukar Shrirang Sonwane & Anr vs Tatyarao Gangaram Mule
2016 Latest Caselaw 3049 Bom

                                              1                    Cri.WP.No.15.03.odt




                                                                                
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY   
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                        
                     CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 15 OF 2003


    1.    Madhukar Shrirang Sonwane,




                                                       
           Age : 49 years, Occu : Service,
           Divisional Controller, Maharashtra
           State Road Transport Corporation
           Latur, Now at Parbhani.




                                            
    2.    Dattratraya Nivruti Bhelonde,
                               
           Age : Major, Occu : Service,
           Divisional Traffic Superintendent (Default)
                              
           Maharashtra State Road Transport
           Corporation, Latur Division,
                                                                    Petitioners
           Latur, District Latur.
    VERSUS
      


    Tatyarao Gangaram Mule,
    Age : 51 years, resident of 
   



    At & Post : Sukani,
    Taluka Udgir, District Latur.                                   Respondent





    Smt. R. D. Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners.
    Respondent /(sole) - served. 
                                     ....

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) DATE : 21/06/2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners are personally present in the Court in

pursuance to the order of this Court dated 03.05.2016. None

appeared for the respondent on 03.05.2016. None appeared for the

atu/June.2016

respondent today also.

2. Learned Advocate Mrs. Reddy has appeared on behalf of the

petitioners in this matter. This petition was admitted on 17.06.2003.

Interim relief was not granted.

3.

I have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners who has

criticized the impugned judgment of the Labour Court dated

21.06.2000 by which the criminal complaint filed under Section 48(1)

of the MRTU and PULP, Act 1971, has been allowed and the

petitioners have been convicted with fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One

thousand) each. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the judgment

of the Industrial Court dated 29.11.2002 vide which the appeal filed

by the petitioners has been dismissed.

4. Mrs.Reddy has strenuously criticized the impugned judgments.

Contention is that ad interim protection was granted by the Labour

Court dated 26.07.1999 under Section 30(2) thereby directing the

petitioners not to dismiss the respondent from service as per the

atu/June.2016

proposed notice dated 24.07.1999. It is stated that the notice dated

24.07.1999 was a show cause notice proposing the punishment of

dismissal from service. It is the contention of the petitioners that the

order of the Labour Court dated 26.07.1999 was served upon the

petitioners on 27.07.1999. However, by the dismissal order dated

26.07.1999, the respondent was dismissed from service. The said

order was served upon the respondent on 31.07.1999.

5. Issue before the Labour Court under Section 48(1) was with

regard to the disobedience of an order passed by the Labour Court or

the Industrial Court. It is strenuously submitted by Mrs. Reddy that

once the order of dismissal was issued, prior to the receipt of the

order of the Labour Court, there cannot be any act of wilful

disobedience. Since the order of dismissal was dispatched

considering the absence of the respondent, as he was before the

Labour Court on the same date, action of dismissal is complete and

hence there is no disobedience of the directions of the Labour Court.

Had the petitioners been aware of the order of the Labour Court and

despite the same if the order of dismissal was issued, case of willful

atu/June.2016

disobedience would be established.

6. I have considered the submissions of the petitioners and have

gone through the impugned judgments.

7. In service jurisprudence when a second show cause notice

proposing the punishment of dismissal is issued, a reasonable time

of seven days is normally made available to the delinquent to put

forth his explanation. In the instant case, the show cause notice

was dated 24.07.1999. It is stated by Mrs. Reddy on the basis of the

record that 72 hours time was given to the respondent vide the said

notice. As such, the respondent had been given time upto 27.07.1999

to submit his explanation. Instead of submitting his submission

within the 72 hours time is granted, he served a copy of the order of

the Labour Court on 27.07.1999. The petitioners, therefore, took a

stand that he has already been dismissed on 26.07.1999, which

proves that they hurriedly passed the orders of dismissal before the

expiry of the notice period.

atu/June.2016

8. I do not find, that the petitioners had led documentary

evidence to indicate that the order of dismissal was dispatched on

26.07.1999. Nevertheless, the said order was served upon the

respondent on 31.07.1999 thereby bringing into effect the order of

dismissal, though the Labour Court's order preventing the dismissal

was received by the petitioners at 1:30 P.M. On 27.07.1999.

9. Considering the above fact situation, I do not find that the

Labour Court or the Industrial Court had committed any error in

concluding that the petitioners either should have recalled the

dismissal order or should have continued the respondent in service

to prove their bonafides. I also do not find that the impugned

judgments could be termed as being perverse or erroneous.

10. This petition being devoid of merit is, therefore, dismissed.

11. Rule is discharged.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

atu/June.2016