Bombay High Court
Mah. State Road Transport ... vs Vitthal Gangadharrao Galphade on 23 March, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.7265 OF 2012
1 Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation,
State Road Transport Office,
Beed, District Beed.
Through its Divisional Controller,
Shri. Dattu Bhausaheb Mane,
Age : 54 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o : Beed, District Beed.
2 Depot Manager,
State Road Transport,
Dharur Depot, Dharur,
District Beed. ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Shri Waman Hanumantrao Chaudhari,
Age : 58 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o : Dharur, District Beed. ...RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7266 OF 2012
1 Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation,
State Road Transport Office,
Beed, District Beed.
Through its Divisional Controller,
Shri. Dattu Bhausaheb Mane,
Age : 54 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o : Beed, District Beed.
2 Depot Manager,
State Road Transport,
Dharur Depot, Dharur,
District Beed. ...PETITIONERS
khs/March 2016/7265 -d
::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:09:55 :::
2
VERSUS
Shri Vitthal Gangadharrao Galphade,
Age : 48 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o : Dharur, District Beed. ...RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7278 OF 2012
1 Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation,
State Road Transport Office,
Beed, District Beed.ig
Through its Divisional Controller,
Shri. Dattu Bhausaheb Mane,
Age : 54 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o : Beed, District Beed.
2 Depot Manager,
State Road Transport,
Dharur Depot, Dharur,
District Beed. ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Shri Vijay Prasad Suraj Prasad Awasthi,
Age : 56 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o : Dharur, District Beed. ...RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7281 OF 2012
1 Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation,
State Road Transport Office,
Beed, District Beed.
Through its Divisional Controller,
Shri. Dattu Bhausaheb Mane,
Age : 54 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o : Beed, District Beed.
khs/March 2016/7265 -d
::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:09:55 :::
3
2 Depot Manager,
State Road Transport,
Dharur Depot, Dharur,
District Beed. ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Shri Manik Shankarrao Galphade
Age : 50 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o : Dharur, District Beed. ...RESPONDENT
....
Mr. R.N. Jain, Advocate h/f Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate for the
petitioners.
Mr. Y.R. Marlapalle, Advocate for the respondents.
....
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 23/03/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
consent of the parties.
2. Learned Advocates for the petitioner and the respondents in all
these matters submit that all these matters involve an identical issue
in law. The facts are virtually identical. In one identical group of
petitions in the matter of MSRTC and another Vs. Shivaji Bhairuba
Dhapate, this Court, by its judgment dated 10/12/2014 reported in
2015(2) Lj.Soft 73 has, after placing reliance upon the earlier
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, has
khs/March 2016/7265 -d
quashed and set aside the judgment of the Industrial Court and
remitted Complaint (ULP) Nos. 39/2006 and 40/2006 to the
Industrial Court for a decision afresh.
3. I have considered the joint statement of the learned Advocates.
In paragraph Nos. 5 to 12 of the judgment of this Court in the matter
of MSRTC Vs Shivaji Bhairuba Dhapate (supra), this Court has
observed as under :-
"5. In both the cases before me, though the domestic enquiry
was questioned on the grounds of non-adherence to the
principles of natural justice and the findings of the Enquiry
Officer, the Industrial Court was expected to frame two
preliminary issues and which are required to be decided
peremptorily in the light of the crystallized position in law. No
such issue was framed.
6. While deciding the complaints by the impugned judgments
dated 22.12.2011, the Industrial Court has arrived at it's
conclusion in paragraph Nos.16 and 22, whereby it is concluded
that the domestic enquiry was not conducted in accordance with
the principles of natural justice and a fair and proper opportunity
was not given the workman to defend himself. It was thus
concluded that the enquiry is not fair and proper and the Enquiry
Officer's findings based on such enquiry, are perverse. The
domestic enquiry was, therefore, held to be vitiated.
khs/March 2016/7265 -d
7. The procedure adopted by the Industrial Court and the
conclusions arrived at are in opposition to all tenets of law. The
procedure that is required to be followed was considered in the
case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited Vs. Ludh
Budh Singh (1972 (1) SCC 595 ) and in various other judgments
subsequent thereto. A similar view has been taken in the case of
Shambhu Nath Goyal Vs. Bank of Baroda (1984 (4) SCC 491) as
regards the procedure that is required to be followed while setting
aside an enquiry. This position has been taken into account by
this Court in the case of MSRTC Beed (supra).
8. This Court has also concluded in the case of Maharashtra
Cotton Growers' Marketing Federation Limited and another
Vs.Vasant Ambadas Deshpande [2014(3) Mh.L.J.339] that the
fairness of the enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are
to be considered on the basis of the enquiry proceedings and the
evidence recorded in the enquiry.
9. In the light of the above, the impugned judgments in both
these petitions are unsustainable and are, therefore, quashed
and set aside. Complaints (ULP) Nos. 39 of 2006 and 40 of 2006
are remitted back to the Industrial Court, Aurangabad so as to
enable the Industrial Court to consider the procedure that is
required to be followed as has been laid down in the case of
MSRTC Beed (supra). It is expected that the Industrial Court
shall, accordingly, frame two preliminary issues as regards the
fairness of the enquiry as well as the findings of the Enquiry
khs/March 2016/7265 -d
Officer and decide the same peremptorily.
10. The Industrial Court, in the event answers the two
preliminary issues in the affirmative, it shall take into account
the fact that the petitioner MSRTC has reserved its right to
conduct a de novo enquiry before the Industrial Court, which is in
tune with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Bharat Forge Company Ltd. Vs. A.B. Zodge and another (AIR
1996 SC 1556) and Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
Vs. Laxmidevamma & another ( AIR 2001 SCW 1981).
11. The litigating parties shall appear before the Industrial
Court on 9.1.2015. Notices of hearing, therefore, need not be
issued by the Industrial Court. Needless to state, this Court has
not dealt with the merits of the matter. The Industrial Court shall
decide both these cases on their own merits and without being
influenced by any of the observations made in this order. Both
the litigating parties are at liberty to canvass their contentions
and all contentions, therefore, are kept open.
12. In the result, both these Writ Petitions are accordingly
allowed. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs."
4. Considering the identical situation involved in these four
matters as well, all these 4 writ petitions are partly allowed. The
impugned judgment of the Industrial Court in all these 4 matters are
quashed and set aside. Complaint (ULP) Nos. 42/2006, 43/2006,
khs/March 2016/7265 -d
44/2006 and 45/2006 are remitted back to the Industrial Court to
be decided in the light of the directions set out in paragraph Nos. 10
and 11 of the judgment reproduced as above.
5. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to
costs.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/March 2016/7265 -d
