Shri Govind Bhujangrao Mardode ... vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6085 Bom

                                       1




                                                                         
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY   
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                 
                      WRIT PETITION NO.7326 OF 2016

    1.     Govind S/o Bhujangrao Mardode,
           Age-51 years, Occu-Service,
           Working as Divisional Personnel Officer,




                                                
           State Transport, Parbhani, 
           Dist.Parbhani,
           R/o S.T.Quarter, Parbhani, 
           Dist.Parbhani,




                                     
    2.     Kamlesh S/o Suresh Bhavsar,
           Age-31 years, Occu-Service,
                              
           Working as Labour Officer,
           State Transport, Mumbai Central Office,
           Mumbai.
                             
           R/o S.T.Officer's Quarter, Thane,
           District Thane,

    3.     Vasant S/o Ramchandra Sabale,
           Age-47 years, Occu-Service,
      


           Working as Senior Clerk, Nanded,
           Dist. Nanded, 
   



           R/o Manik Nagar, Nanded,
           District : Nanded                          --  PETITIONERS

    VERSUS





    1.     Maharashtra State Road Transport
           Corporation, Parbhani Division,
           Parbhani, 
           Through Divisional Controller,





    2.     Sadashiv S/o Namdeo Thorat,
           Age-26 years, Occu-Nil,
           R/o Sawad, Tq. and Dist.Hingoli            -- RESPONDENTS

Mr.P.D.Bachate, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.D.S.Bagul, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.M.P.Ambekar, Advocate for respondent No.2.

khs/OCT.2016/7326-d

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

DATE : 17/10/2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the

consent of the parties.

2. The petitioners are the Divisional Personnel Officer, Labour

Officer and Senior Clerk with the MSRTC. Grievance is that the

Labour Court, while dealing with Complaint (ULP) No.47/2014 filed

by respondent No.2 herein, has directed respondent No.1 /

Corporation to lodge a complaint with the Police Station with regard

to the offences said to have been committed by the D.P.O. Supervisor,

Senior Clerk, Junior Clerk, respondent No.2 herein and his cousin

brother Sunil Trimbak Jagtap.

3. It is submitted as under :-

[a] On 25/11/2009, the MSRTC published an advertisement for filling in the posts of 'Conductor' at Parbhani and Nanded. [b] Respondent No.2 applied at both the places on 27/11/2009. [c] A written examination was held on 04/07/2010 between 8.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. at Nanded and 11.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. at Parbhani, which is 75 kms from Nanded.

[d] Verification of original documents and interviews were

khs/OCT.2016/7326-d

conducted on 25/11/2010 for Parbhani and 29/11/2010 for Nanded.

[e] Respondent No.2 was placed in the select list at Sr.No.12 for Parbhani and 17 for Nanded.

[f] Respondent No.2 was subjected to medical examination

subsequently and underwent training on 09/06/2011. [g] He was issued with an appointment order on 29/08/2011 in the Parbhani District.

[h] The cousin brother of respondent No.2 namely Sunil Jagtap

appeared for interviews at Nanded on 29/11/2010 posing as respondent No.2, underwent medical examination subsequently and also underwent training for the Nanded district.

[i] The Civil Surgeon issued the medical certificate in the name of respondent No.2 on the basis of which Sunil Jagtap underwent training and was finally appointed as a Conductor on

27/11/2011.

[j] In the meanwhile, respondent No.2 was transferred to Hingoli district and on 25/07/2012, while both of them i.e. respondent No.2 and Sunil Jagtap were on duty under the name of

respondent No.2, it was revealed that two persons were working as respondent No.2 with the MSRTC.

[k] Respondent No.2 was subsequently charge sheeted and has been dismissed from service.

[l] He preferred Complaint (ULP) No.47/2014 before the Labour Court at Nanded challenging the second show cause notice. [m] After the rejection of his interim application, he was dismissed from service.

[n] By judgment dated 16/01/2016, the Labour Court allowed the complaint and while directing the reinstatement of respondent

khs/OCT.2016/7326-d

No.2, has issued directions to the petitioners to lodge a police complaint against certain employees of the MSRTC for allegedly

not noticing that a stranger Sunil Trimbak Jagtap had posed as respondent No.2.

4. The contentions of the petitioners are that they are not party to

the complaint before the Labour Court and the Labour Court could

not have directed the MSRTC to lodge such a complaint. It is further

stated that the MSRTC has preferred a Revision Petition No.26/2016

for challenging the order of the Labour Court granting reinstatement

to respondent No.2, which has been stayed only to the extent of

reinstatement.

5. Mr.Bagul, learned Advocate for the MSRTC submits that the

Corporation has stated in paragraph No.24 of its revision petition

that the Labour Court cannot have the jurisdiction to direct the

respondent/employer to lodge a police complaint against any

particular employee of the Corporation. The Industrial Court has

only stayed the reintatement of respondent No.2, but has not stayed

the direction to the Corporation to lodge a police complaint.

6. Mr.Bagul further submits that respondent No.2 has lodged a

Misc.Application No.503/2014 before the learned Judicial Magistrate,

khs/OCT.2016/7326-d

F.C. at Nanded invoking Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure

Code against his cousin brother Sunil Jagtap.

7. The learned Advocate for respondent No.2 contends that he is

kept out of employment because of the interim order of the Industrial

Court. This Court may therefore direct the Corporation to reinstate

him in employment.

8. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for

the respective sides.

9. At the outset, it needs mention that the prayer of respondent

No.2 in this petition cannot be entertained since he is not a petitioner

before this Court against the interim order of the Industrial Court

dated 05/07/2016.

10. In so far as the challenge posed by these petitioners is

concerned, it needs to be noted that the MSRTC itself has challenged

the judgment of the Labour Court and has also assailed the

directions set out therein by which the Corporation has to file an FIR

in the concerned Police Station against some of its employees for

having purportedly connived with respondent No.2 and with Sunil

khs/OCT.2016/7326-d

Jagtap in order to accommodate Sunil Jagtap in employment.

11. Considering that the issue is subjudice before the Industrial

Court and since these petitioners are not party respondents before

the Labour Court, the petitioners do not have the locus-standi to

approach this Court by filing this petition.

12.

This petition is, therefore, disposed of as being untenable in

law.

13. Rule is discharged.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

khs/OCT.2016/7326-d