Bombay High Court
Adarsha Bahu Uddeshiya Mandal vs The Hon\'Ble Industrial Court At ... on 4 April, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1
wp2265.272.05.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.2265 of 2005
And
Writ Petition No.272 of 2005
Writ Petition No.2265 of 2005
Adarsha Bahuudeshiya Mandal,
Ambedkar Ward,
Bhandara,
through its Secretary -
Shri Manoj s/o Shamrao
Wadibhasme,
R/o Ambedkar Ward,
Bhandara,
Tq. and Distt. Bhandara. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Honourable Industrial Court,
Bhandara,
Tq. and Distt. Bhandara.
2. Honourable Labour Court,
Bhandara,
Tq. and Distt. Bhandara.
3. Shri Hiralal s/o Janardan Inkane,
Aged about 42 years,
Occupation - Service,
R/o Bhandara,
Tah. & Distt. Bhandara. ... Respondents
Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, Assistant Government Pleader for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shri R.S. Parsodkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 00:14:37 :::
2
wp2265.272.05.odt
Writ Petition No.272 of 2005
Adarsha Bahu-Uddeshiya Mandal,
Ambedkar Ward, Bhandara,
through its Secretary,
R/o Ambedkar Wardh,
Bhandara, District-Bhandara. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Hon'ble Industrial Court
at Bhandara.
2. Hiralal Janardan Inkane,
Aged about 40 years,
R/o Narkesari Ward,
Bhandara,
Tahasil & District - Bhandara.
3. Smt. Premabai Shamraoji
Wadibhasme,
Convenor,
Enquiry Committee,
R/o Ambedkar Ward,
Bhandara.
4. Shri S.M. Humne,
Member of Enquiry Committee,
R/o Lakhni, District - Bhandara.
5. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Bhandara. ... Respondents
Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, Assistant Government Pleader for
Respondent Nos.1 and 5.
Shri R.S. Parsodkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 00:14:37 :::
3
wp2265.272.05.odt
Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.
th
Date : 4 April, 2017
Oral Judgment :
1. In Complaint (ULP) No.66 of 2004, the Labour Court at
Bhandara, decided the preliminary issue on 16-12-2004
regarding the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain, try
and decide the complaint under Section 28 read with Item I of
Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions
& Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 in view of
the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private
Schools (Regulation) Act, 1977 and the rules framed
thereunder. The Labour Court held that it has the jurisdiction
to try the complaint. The revision preferred against this order,
was dismissed by the Industrial Court on 6-1-2005. Hence,
this petition by the Management.
2. On 17-12-2004, the Labour Court rejected the
application for grant of interim relief, filed in the aforesaid
Complaint (ULP) No.66 of 2004. The Industrial Court has
wp2265.272.05.odt
allowed Revision (ULP) No.64 of 2004 by its judgment and
order dated 6-1-2005, setting aside the order of the Labour
Court refusing to grant interim relief and restrained the
Management from terminating the services or dismissing the
complainant from service without following due process of
law, as prescribed under Rules 36 and 37 of the MEPS Rules.
The Industrial Court has also directed inspection of record by
the complainant and completion of enquiry within a stipulated
period. This judgment and order dated 6-1-2005 passed by
the Industrial Court is the subject-matter of Writ Petition
No.272 of 2005 filed by the Management.
3. Shri Mohagaonkar, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, submits that the Management had terminated
about 17 teaching employees from service in the year 1994.
Keeping in view the mass termination, the Director of
Education appointed an Administrator by an order
dated 21-8-1999, which was the subject-matter of challenge in
Writ Petition No.3168 of 1999. On 20-3-2001, this Court
stayed the order of appointment of the Administrator. The
petitioner-Management continued to be in charge of the
wp2265.272.05.odt
School.
4. Writ Petition No.3168 of 1999 filed by the
petitioner-Management challenging the appointment of the
Administrator on 21-8-1999 came before this Court for final
hearing. On 20-9-2016, the Division Bench of this Court
disposed of the said writ petition finally, recording the
statement in the judgment as under :
" In the fitness of things and in the circumstances of
the case, it would not be proper to decide the matter on
merits. The Administrator has not taken over the charge
of the Management of the School and the Management of
the Society is managing the School during the past 17
years when this writ petition was pending. If the
Teachers or any other employees in the School have any
grievance about the management, they are free to make
a complaint in that regard to the Education Authorities,
which the Education Authorities will be free to decide in
accordance with law.
Shri Mohgaonkar, the learned Counsel for the
petitioner, states that in terms of the statement made by
him on 3/2/2005, the petitioner would not continue
wp2265.272.05.odt
with the enquiries that were initiated against the
employees at the relevant time in the year 2004-05 and
in whose reference, the statement was made."
5. On 7-8-2004, the statement of allegation was issued to
the respondent-Hiralal Janardan Inkane, and an enquiry was
initiated against him, which ultimately culminated into
issuance of the communication dated 17-12-2004 by the
petitioner-Management, intimating him that on 22-12-2004,
a meeting is proposed to be held to take the decision on the
question of punishment to be imposed upon the said
respondent. This was the subject-matter of challenge in
Complaint (ULP) No.66 of 2004. It is not in dispute that
during the pendency of all these proceedings, the
respondent-Hiralal Janardan Inkane continued to work on the
post of Clerk and he is still working on the said post. He is
getting regular salary on the said post.
6. The parties are bound by the aforesaid statement. The
respondent-Hiralal Janardan Inkane is continued in service,
and in view of the aforesaid statement made before this Court
wp2265.272.05.odt
in Writ Petition No.3168 of 1999, the enquiry initiated against
the said respondent stands dropped.
7. In view of this, it is not necessary for this Court to
decide the academic issues involved in the matter. Needless
to say that it is always open for the petitioner-Management to
conduct an enquiry and take an action against the
respondent-Hiralal Janardan Inkane for the charges other
than those in the show cause notice dated 7-8-2004, if it is
found that any act of misconduct is committed by him after
2004-05.
8. With these observations, the petitions stand disposed
of. No order as to costs.
Judge.
Lanjewar,PS
