Bombay High Court
M/S. Girnar Logistics Pvt. Ltd., ... vs The Additional Commissioner Of ... on 21 June, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
22-WP-6122-15 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.6122 OF 2015
M/s Girnar Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
Adarsh Nagar, Khadgaon Road,
Wadi, Nagpur.
Thr. Its Branch Manager,
Omprakash Purkharam Duddi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Additional Commissioner of Labour,
Nagpur,
O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Labour,
New Administrative Building No.2,
4th Floor, A Wing, In front of Z.P. Office,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
2. The Conciliation Officer
O/o the Additional Commissioner of Labour,
New Administrative Building No.2,
4th Floor, A Wing, In front of Z.P. Office,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3. Ashirwad Govindrao Kapse
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Service.
R/o C/o Kranti Gumashtha Mandal
Shivmandir Road, Rajendra Nagar,
Nandanvan, Nagpur 24. ... Respondents.
Shri V. P. Marpakwar, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri S. Ahirkar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : JUNE 21, 2016
Oral Judgment :
Notice for final disposal was issued on 31/03/2016. Though the
22-WP-6122-15 2/4
matter was called twice, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent
No.3. Hence the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 have been heard by issuing Rule and making the same
returnable forthwith.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of reference passed by the
Additional Labour Commissioner, Nagpur pursuant to an application moved
by the respondent No.3 before the Conciliation Officer. The facts on record
indicate that it is the case of the respondent No.3 that he was appointed
with the petitioner establishment. During the course of service, he was
sought to be transferred from the Nagpur office to the Ahmedabad office. It
appears that the respondent No.3 did not join at the transferred place and
hence communications dated 15/12/2013 and 03/01/2014 calling upon
him to join immediately came to be issued. The record indicates that on
01/07/2014, the respondent No.3 approached the Conciliation Officer with
a grievance that his services had been terminated on 09/12/2013. In said
proceedings, the petitioner filed its reply and took the stand that the services
of the respondent No.3 had not been terminated but they had infact been
transferred. Thereafter on 28/01/2015, the Conciliation Officer called upon
the petitioner to furnish information as to whether the services of the
respondent No.3 had been terminated with effect from 09/12/2013. In
response thereto, the petitioner informed the Conciliation Officer that the
22-WP-6122-15 3/4
services of the respondent No.3 had been transferred and not terminated.
On 02/07/2015, the 1st Additional Labour Commissioner made a reference
to Industrial Court to consider the dispute as to whether the services of the
respondent No.3 were terminated in accordance with law on 09/12/2013.
The same is under challenge in the present writ petition.
3. Shri V. P. Marpakwar, the learned counsel for the petition by relying
upon the stand taken by the petitioner in various communications submitted
that the services of the respondent No.3 had merely been transferred and
that his services had not been terminated. He submitted that it was the case
all along that the respondent No.3 had failed to join at the transferred place.
He therefore submitted that the respondent No.2 without considering the
stand of the petitioner has made a reference pertaining to termination of the
services of the respondent No.3.
Shri S. Ahirkar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 tried to support the order dated 02/07/2015 on the
ground that it was the grievance of the respondent No.3 that his services
came to be terminated on 09/12/2013.
4. I have gone through the documents filed on record. The order of
transfer dated 05/12/2013 and the subsequent communications dated
15/12/2013 and 03/01/2014 indicate that after the order of transfer, the
22-WP-6122-15 4/4
petitioner called upon the respondent No.3 to join at the transferred place.
Even in the reply filed by the petitioner dated 10/12/2014 as well
25/02/2015 this stand has been clarified. In view of the fact that a clear
stand was taken by the petitioner that the services of the respondent No.3
had merely been transferred and the same were never terminated, it was
necessary for the respondent No.2 have taken the same into consideration.
It is pertinent to note that on 28/01/2015 a specific query as regards the
order of termination came to be made by the respondent No.2 and this fact
was again clarified by stating that there was no order of termination issued..
It appears that the order dated 02/07/2015 has been passed without taking
into consideration the reply filed on behalf of the petitioner along with
various documents.
5. In the light of material available on record, I find that it would be
necessary to direct the respondent No.2 to reconsider the entire material and
taken a fresh decision in the matter. In view of aforesaid, the order dated
02/07/2015 is quashed and set aside. The respondent No.2 shall reconsider
the entire matter along with all the documents on record and take a fresh
decision on the application moved by the respondent No.3.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Asmita
