Zp, Wardha Thr C.E.O vs Subhash Tukaramji Buche Wardha
2016 Latest Caselaw 598 Bom

                                          1                                       mcast4078.16




                                                                                   
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     




                                                           
                              NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                          
     MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.4078 OF 2016



     Subhash s/o Tukaramji Buche,




                                             
     Aged about 51 years, Occupation - Service,
     R/o House No.16, 94, MIG Mhada Colony,
                             
     Near RTO, Wardha.                                              ....       APPLICANT
                            
                     VERSUS


     Zilla Parishad, Wardha,
     through its Chief Executive Officer.                           ....NON-APPLICANT
      
   



     ______________________________________________________________
                Shri V.P. Marpakwar, Advocate for the applicant.
                Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for the non-applicant





      ______________________________________________________________


                                   CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 14 MARCH, 2016 th

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri V.P. Marpakwar, Advocate for the

applicant/original respondent and Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for the

non-applicant/original petitioner.

2 mcast4078.16

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. Writ Petition No.3034/2008 was filed by the Zilla

Parishad, Wardha challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court

allowing the complaint filed by the respondent/employee. The

Industrial Court, by the order dated 16-01-2008, had concluded that

joint enquiry against the respondent/employee and co-delinquent, as

alleged to have been held by the employer (Zilla Parishad) was not

permissible and in view of this finding, the order of punishment issued

by the employer on 07-11-2000 was quashed.

By the judgment dated 10-12-2015, this Court concluded

that joint enquiry was permissible as per Rule 8 of the Maharashtra

Zilla Parishads District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964

and set aside the conclusion of the Industrial Court on that point and

as the Industrial Court had not adverted to the other issues the matter

came to be remitted to the Industrial Court for deciding the complaint

filed by the respondent/employee afresh. While remitting the matter

to the Industrial Court, it is specifically recorded that the parties will

not be permitted to produce any additional material on the record and

the Industrial Court will consider only the material available on the

record and after granting hearing to the parties, dispose the complaint

3 mcast4078.16

filed by the respondent/employee.

4. The respondent/employee has filed this application

seeking review of the judgment passed by this Court, as the Zilla

Parishad (employer) has filed certain documents before the Industrial

Court.

5. After considering the submissions made by the learned

Advocates for the respective parties, I find that there is no ambiguity in

clause (ii) of paragraph No.6 of the judgment passed by this Court and

the Zilla Parishad (employer) cannot be permitted to file any

document on the record.

6. I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record

which necessitates review of the judgment. The application filed by

the respondent/employee is disposed. In the circumstances, the

parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

pma