Bombay High Court
Sunil Vitthalrao Jikre vs The Manager Janseva Nagri Sahkari ... on 9 March, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 907.wp.2894.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2894 OF 2017
Sunil s/o Vitthalrao Jikre,
Age : 44 years, Occupation : Nil,
R/o Nagoba Galli, Main Road,
Bhoom, Tq.Bhoom,
District Osmanabad.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
The Manager,
Janseva Nagri Sahkari Bank Ltd.,
R/o S.No.220, Kureshi Building,
Kusum Nagar, Tq.Bhoom,
District Osmanabad.
...RESPONDENT
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Ghute Suhas B.
Advocate for Respondent : Shri Mukul S. Kulkarni and Shri D.A.Madake.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 09th March, 2017
Oral Judgment :
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
consent of the parties.
2 I have considered the strenuous submissions of Shri Ghute,
learned Advocate for the Petitioner/ original Complainant before the
*2* 907.wp.2894.17
Labour Court and Shri Kulkarni, learned Advocate on behalf of the
Respondent/ Employer.
3 Considering the order that I intend to pass, I deem it proper
not to advert to their entire submissions since it might lead to certain
observations which would come in the way of either of the parties keeping
in view that the ULP complaint is pending adjudication.
4 The Labour Court, by order dated 06.05.2015, has allowed
the application Exhibit U/2 in Complaint (ULP) No.44/2014 and has
granted interim relief under Section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971
whereby, the Respondent is directed to reinstate the Petitioner/ workman
till the decision in the main complaint.
5 It is trite law that final relief at an interim stage cannot be
granted. To put it conversely, interim relief in the nature of final relief
ought not to be granted.
6 The Industrial Court, by the impugned judgment dated
29.11.2016, has allowed Revision (ULP) No.25/2015 filed by the
Respondent and has quashed and set aside the interim order of the Labour
Court. The complaint is made time-bound and the Labour Court is
*3* 907.wp.2894.17
directed to decide the complaint within four months.
7 There is no dispute that the Respondent has entered the
Written Statement specifically listing out the misdeeds committed by the
Petitioner which would amount to sexual harassment. Several other
instances have been cited which convinced the Management to dispense
with the service of the Petitioner looking at the seriousness and gravity of
the situation. On internal page 9 of the Written Statement, the
Respondent/ Management has specifically reserved it's right to conduct an
enquiry and prove the charges of misconduct before the Labour Court.
This is in tune with the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court
(five judges Bench) in the matter of KSRTC v/s Lakshmidevamma, 2001
(2) CLR 640. The Respondent is, therefore, under an obligation to
conduct an enquiry before the Labour Court by leading evidence for
proving the charges. The onus and burden lies on the Management to
prove the charges. Once this burden is discharged, it would then be for the
workman to prove that he has not committed the said misconduct.
8 Notwithstanding the above, from 06.05.2015 till the
Industrial Court delivered the impugned judgment, interim order was
operating and the Industrial Court had not stayed the said interim order.
Only to balance the equities, I am, therefore, inclined to direct the
*4* 907.wp.2894.17
Respondent to pay an amount equal to 50% of the gross salary of the
Petitioner/ Employee for a period of three months, keeping in view that
the Labour Court is to decide the complaint on it's merits by the end of
April, 2017.
9 Considering the above, this Writ Petition is partly allowed by
modifying the impugned judgment of the Industrial Court as under:-
(a) The Labour Court shall frame the issues, if not already so
done.
(b) The Respondent/ Management shall commence the recording
of it's evidence before the Labour Court for proving the
charges against the Petitioner/ original Complainant.
(c) After the Management has concluded recording it's evidence,
the Petitioner shall then commence the recording of his
evidence.
(d) Both the parties are at liberty to place documentary evidence
on record besides their oral evidence to be recorded as
observed above.
(e) The Respondent/ Management shall deposit the amount
equal to 50% of three months gross wages of the Petitioner
(said to be Rs.8000/- per month) before the Labour Court
within four FOUR WEEKS from today and the Petitioner shall
*5* 907.wp.2894.17
be entitled to withdraw the said amount without conditions.
(f) The Labour Court shall endeavour to decide the complaint as
directed by the Industrial Court by the end of April, 2017 and
the litigating sides shall cooperate with the Labour Court by
refraining from seeking unnecessary adjournments on
unreasonable or trivial grounds.
10 Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
