Bombay High Court
Vijay S/O Laxmanrao Vahadne vs Ajinka Arun Firodiya on 20 March, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
Cri.W.P.No. 487/16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 487 OF 2016
Vijay s/o. Laxmanrao Vahadne,
Age 43 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Mohini Nagar, Kedgaon,
Tq. & Dist. Ahamednagar. ....Petitioner.
Versus
Ajinkya Arun Firodiya,
Age 33 years, Occu. Business,
The Managing Director of
Kinetic Engineering Limited,
Near Dhound Road, Ahmednagar,
R/o. C/o. Kinetic Engineering Ltd.,
Ahamadnagar. ....Respondent.
Mr. K.M. Nagarkar, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate for respondent.
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.
DATED : 20th March, 2017.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent,
heard both the sides for final disposal.
2. The petition is filed to challenge the judgment and
order of Revision ULP No. 15/2014, which was pending before
the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar. By the decision under
challenge, the Industrial Court has allowed the revision of the
present respondent - Ajinkya Firodiya and the process issued
Cri.W.P.No. 487/16
against him by Labour Court in a proceeding under section 48
(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP
Act) is set aside.
3. It was mainly submitted for respondent - Ajinkya
Firodiya that he came in picture in 2014 when the matter
between the petitioner and the employer was decided and so,
the process ought not have been issued by the Labour Court
against the respondent. This submission of the respondent -
Ajinkya cannot be accepted as the order is still not implemented,
which was made in favour of petitioner and which has become
final. In similar matter, in Criminal Writ Petition No.
586/2014 decided on 11.4.2016 [Gulabrao s/o. Bhadu
Pawar Vs. Ajinkya Arun Firodiya], this Court has set aside
the order of Industrial Court by observing that only on the basis
of contentions in the revision, the proceeding could not have
been allowed. The nature of duties of respondent - Ajinkya and
holding the post of Managing Director need to be considered. His
knowledge with regard to the order made against the employee
needs to be considered and then some order can be made. The
observations can be found at para Nos. 5 to 7 and they are as
under :-
Cri.W.P.No. 487/16
"5. With the assistance of the respective
Counsel, I have perused the order passed by the
learned Labour Court on 19th August, 2007,
wherein directions were issued in favour of present
petitioner and against respondent, directing
reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of
service. The fact remains, since the said order was
not complied with. Present petitioner was
prompted to initiate proceedings under Section 48
(1) of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, and in the said
proceeding also, no compliance was reported. Fact
remains that the order of the learned Labour Court
has attained finality till Letters Patent Appeal
before this Court. The claim that the respondent
Ajinkya Firodiya is not responsible for compliance
of the order in question though sought to be
justified through the pleadings of accused in the
revision. Fact remains that while doing so, the
Industrial Court is required to ascertain the duties
and functions of such person/accused and based
on the same may proceeded ahead with the
application - revision for discharge.
6. In the present case, what is noticed is, the
Industrial Court has accepted the statement of
accused person made in the application which was
without any legal foundation but for pleadings, and
has discharged the accused Ajinkya Firodiya. The
least that was expected of the Industrial Court was
to consider the pleadings of the petitioner-
Cri.W.P.No. 487/16
complainant in an application under Section 48 (1)
of M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, showing that
respondent to be accused person in the same, and
proceeded after ascertaining liability and
responsibility in managing affairs of the Company,
particularly in the matter of compliance of the
Judicial verdicts given by the learned Court in
favour of the petitioner to which respondent was
party.
7. The order which is impugned in the present
petition prima facie could be inferred as the one
passed by the learned Industrial Court without
considering above referred parameters and hence
not in tune with the provisions of Section 48 (1) of
the Act. As a consequence of above, even if
original accused No. 1 Hemant Dike is convicted
under Section 48 (1) of the Act, still in my opinion,
the order of issuance of process and the discharge
order would not merged with the final order
passed against other accused Hemant. The role of
the present respondent Ajinkya has to be
analysed, so as to find out whether he is entitled
for discharge."
4. In the result, for the same reason, this Court holds
that the order made by the Industrial Court in favour of
respondent dated 26.3.2014 cannot sustain in law. It is quashed
and set aside by allowing the present petition. The matter is
Cri.W.P.No. 487/16
remanded back to the Industrial Court to decide the contentions
made by respondent - Ajinkya on the basis of record noted
above. Opportunity needs to be given to the present petitioner.
The parties are to appear before the Industrial Court on
10.4.2017.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ]
ssc/
