Bombay High Court
Agricultural Produce Market ... vs Vasantrao Raosaheb Deshmukh on 20 November, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5220 OF 2001
Agricultural Produce Market Committee
Chalisgaon District Jalgaon,
Through its Chairman -- PETITIONER
VERSUS
Vasantrao Raosaheb Deshmukh,
Age-58 years, Occu-Nil,
R/o Shivaji Ghat Chalisgaon,
Dist.Jalgaon -- RESPONDENT
Mr.A.S.Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 20/11/2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner. None for the
respondent.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the interlocutory order dated
09/01/2001 passed by the Labour Court thereby allowing the
application for interim relief filed by the respondent in Complaint
(ULP) No.288/2000. By the impugned order, the Labour Court has
observed as under :
khs/NOV. 2017/5220
"A) Application for interim relief filed by the complainant is
hereby partly allowed.
B) Respondent is hereby directed to withdraw unfair practices
stated in para 16 of this order temporarily and to take
affirmative action and not to dispense with the services of the
complainant by way of dismissal / discharge / termination etc.
during the pendency of main complaint.
C) Respondent is at liberty to impose any other punishment
except above stated major punishment.
D) Parties are at liberty to proceed with the matters on day to
day basis to enable this Court to dispose off the main complaint
on or before 30.4.2001.
E) Respondent to file W.S. on next date i.e. on 17.1.2001. Parties
are hereby directed to appear before this Court on 17.1.2001.
F) No order as to costs."
3. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the impugned order dated
05/03/2001 passed by the Industrial Court, by which the application
Exhibit C-2, seeking a stay in Revision (ULP) No.33/2001 filed by the
petitioner, has been rejected.
4. I find that an issue of a department/domestic enquiry is the
subject matter of the adjudication before the Labour Court. The
manner in which the issues are to be cast and the fairness of the
findings of the Enquiry Officer are to be taken up as a Part-I order/
khs/NOV. 2017/5220
judgment, has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex court in the matter of
Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory Private Ltd.,Vs. The Motipur
Sugar Factory Private Limited, AIR 1965 SC 1803. The said law is in
place for the last more than 50 years.
5. This Court has dealt with such matters by considering the
scheme of law in the cases of Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton
Growers Marketing Federation Ltd., and another Vs. Vasant Ambadas
Deshpande [2014(3) Mh.L.J. 339 = 2014(I) CLR 878] and in the matter
of MSRTC, Beed Vs. Syed Saheblal Syed Nizam, reported at 2014(3)
CLR 514. It is, therefore, trite that until the fairness of the enquiry is
considered and adjudicated upon, interim relief in the nature of
which has been granted by the Labour Court, is an anathema.
6. By order dated 20/12/2001, this Court has admitted the
petition and has granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause 'C-1'
thereby staying the impugned order passed by the Labour Court
dated 09/01/2001.
7. Considering the law and the fact that 16 years have lapsed
after the petition was instituted, I find that this petition deserves to
be allowed. The same is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause
khs/NOV. 2017/5220
C-1. Needless to state, the Labour Court shall proceed to decide
Complaint (ULP) No.288/2000 filed by the respondent herein, by
framing the appropriate issues as is laid down in the judgment of
this Court in the matters of Vasant Ambadas Deshpande and Syed
Saheblal Syed Nizam (supra) and shall decide the said complaint as
expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 31/10/2018, if
not already decided. Consequentially, Revision (ULP) No.33/2001, if
not already decided by the Industrial Court, is rendered infructuous
and stands disposed of.
8. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/NOV. 2017/5220
