Bombay High Court
Anand S/O Jagdish Joshi vs Maharshtra State Road Transport ... on 24 June, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
wp6201.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6201 OF 2015
Anand Jagdish Joshi,
aged 43 yrs. R/o Balji
No. 2, Chandrapur,
Distt. Chandrapur. PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1] Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation,
through Divisional Controller
M.S.R.T.C. Tadoba Road,
Tukumb, Chandrapur.
2] Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation
through Divisional Traffic
Officer, M.S.R.T.C. Tadoba
Road, Tukumb, Chandrapur.
RESPONDENTS.
Shri C. V. Jagdale, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri V. G. Wankhede, Advocate for the respondents.
CORAM: A. S. CHANDURKAR J.
Dated : JUNE 24, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the
parties.
wp6201.15
2] The petitioner who is the original complainant in ULP No.
130 of 2013, has challenged the show cause notice dated 19.09.2013
issued by the respondents whereby punishment of dismissal from
service was sought to be inflicted on the petitioner after holding
departmental enquiry. In the said complaint the petitioner had moved
an application for interim relief. By order dated 07.08.2014 the Labour
Court refused to grant any interim relief. This order was confirmed by
the Industrial Court by order dated 31.10.2015. However, further
period of 15 days was given to the petitioner to submit reply to the
show cause notice. Said order is under challenge in the present writ
petition.
3] Shri C. V. Jagdale, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the proceedings in the complaint are now fixed for
evidence and the petitioner would be filing his affidavit on record. He
states that the ad-interim protection was operating in favour of the
petitioner and the same was continued by this Court by order dated
06.11.2015. He, therefore, submits that if the complaint itself is
decided the rights of the parties could be determined.
4] Shri V. G. Wankhede, the learned counsel for the
respondents submits that the respondents have followed the due
procedure after which the show cause notice came to be issued to the
petitioner. He, therefore, states that there is no question of continuing
wp6201.15
the interim protection. He does not dispute that the complaint has now
been fixed for evidence.
5] Considering the facts of the case and as the order of interim
protection was operating in favour of the petitioner since filing of the
complaint, the interests of justice would met by passing the following:
The proceedings in complaint ULP No. 130 of 2013 are
expedited and the Labour Court is directed to decide the same by the
end of September 2016. The ad-interim order dated 06.11.2015 shall
continue to operate during pendency of the complaint. This
arrangement is however without prejudice to the contentions of the
respondents. The Labour Court shall decide the complaint on its own
merits without being influenced by continuation of the interim relief.
Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs.
JUDGE
svk
