Pascal Rafial Anthony vs Maharashtra State Road Trasnport ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3212 Bom

                                             1                                             wp915.14




                                                                                       
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     




                                                               
                              NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


     WRIT PETITION NO.915 OF 2014




                                                              
     Pascal Rafial Anthony, 
     Aged 47 years, 
     Occupation - Service, 




                                                
     R/o Plot No.95, Grishma Apartment,
     Suyog Nagar, Nagpur.     ig                                        ....       PETITIONER


                         VERSUS
                            
     1) Maharashtra State Road Transport
         Corporation, through its Divisional
      

         Controller, Nagpur.
   



     2) Divisional Traffic Superintendent (DTS),
         M.S.R.T.C., Nagpur Division, Butibori,
         Nagpur.                                                        ....       RESPONDENTS





     ______________________________________________________________
                Shri M.V. Mohokar, Advocate for the petitioner, 
                 Shri V.H. Kedar, Advocate for the respondents.
      ______________________________________________________________





                                   CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 24 th JUNE, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri M.V. Mohokar, Advocate for the petitioner-

employee and Shri V.H. Kedar, Advocate for the respondents-employer.

2 wp915.14

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. An enquiry was conducted against the petitioner on

charges of misappropriation and show cause notice dated 14-10-2011

was issued to the employee asking for his explanation as to why he

should not be dismissed from service. The employee filed complaint

before the Labour Court and in that complaint an ex-parte ad-interim

order came to be passed on 24-10-2011 because of which the

employee continued in the employment. The Labour Court vacated the

interim order on 03-02-2012, however, granted protection to the

employee for some period to enable him to move the Industrial Court.

The employee filed revision before the Industrial Court in which an

interim order was passed on 27-02-2012. By the order dated

10-04-2012 the Industrial Court set aside the interim order passed by

the Labour Court, remanded the matter to the Labour Court for

considering the prayer of the employee for interim order afresh and

granted protection to the employee till the disposal of application for

interim relief by the Labour Court. The Labour Court rejected the

application for interim relief by the order dated 11-02-2013, however,

kept the order in abeyance for sometime to enable the employee to

move the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court granted interim relief

3 wp915.14

in favour of the employee by the order dated 16-02-2013. The revision

filed by the employee came to be dismissed on 11-02-2014, however,

the employee was granted protection for sometime to enable him to

take appropriate steps in the matter. The employee filed this petition

in which an order is passed on 18-02-2014 ordering issuance of notice

and directing the parties to maintain status-quo. In these facts the

employee continued in the employment.

4. In the meantime, the complaint filed by the employee

before the Labour Court was dismissed in default on 13-02-2015. After

dismissal of the complaint in default, the employer gave effect to the

show case notice.

5. This writ petition was dismissed on 09-06-2015 on the

statement made by the learned Advocate for the employer that

complaint before the Labour Court is dismissed in default.

6. The petitioner filed Civil Application No.2432/2015

praying for restoration of writ petition as the complaint came to be

restored and by an order passed on 05-02-2016, the writ petition is

restored. It is undisputed that after the show cause notice was given

4 wp915.14

effect to, the petitioner is not in service. The learned Advocate for the

petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner is reporting for

duty, he is not being provided work. The petitioner has not filed any

affidavit or application bringing these facts on record of the petition.

Even when this petition came to be restored on 05-02-2016, the

petitioner had not made any request for restoration of the interim

order.

7. In these facts, the following order is passed :

(i) The prayer for continuation of interim order till the

decision of the complaint pending before the Labour Court

is rejected.

(ii) The Labour Court is directed to dispose the complaint till

06-01-2017.

(iii) The petition is disposed in the above terms. The parties to

bear their own costs.

JUDGE

adgokar