Kisan Vishwanath Shelke vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 8934 Bom

                                                                   WP/8769/2015
                                         1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 8769 OF 2015

 Kisan Vishwanath Shelke
 Age 61 years, Occ. Retired
 R/o Tapneshwar Galli
 Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar.                              ..Petitioner

 Versus

 Maharashtra State Road Transport
 Corporation, Ahmednagar Division,
 Sarjepura, Kotla, Ahmednagar
 Through it's Divisional Controller.                     ..Respondent

                                   ...
            Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Barde Parag Vijay 
         Advocate for Respondent : Shri Deshmukh Bhausaheb S. 
                                   ...

                       CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Dated: November 22, 2017 ...

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.

2. Rule.

3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the

petition is taken up for final disposal.

4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award dated 6.2.2014,

WP/8769/2015

delivered by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmednagar, by which, his

Reference (IT) No.3 of 2010 has been answered in the negative.

5. I have considered the strenuous submissions of Shri Barde,

learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Deshmukh,

learned counsel on behalf of respondent / Corporation.

6. There is no dispute that the Reference proceedings at issue

were initiated by the petitioner in 2010 for challenging 14 enquiries

and 14 orders of punishment in a single proceeding. It is also

undisputed that the petitioner is aggrieved that the following two

issues were not framed in relation to each enquiry and each

punishment by the Industrial Tribunal:-

(a) Does the second party workman prove that the enquiry conducted by the management is vitiated for non-compliance of the principles of natural justice?

(b) Whether the second party workman proves that the findings of the enquiry officer in each enquiry are perverse?

7. I find that this case has brought out peculiar facts and

circumstances. The document at page No.10 of the petition paper

book pertains to the 14 punishments awarded to the petitioner in

WP/8769/2015

between 1996 till 2002. He has superannuated on 31.7.2014. In a

common proceeding, all the 14 punishments which were never

challenged anytime before, were sought to be challenged by raising

an industrial dispute in 2010. The petitioner has already undergone

the punishment awarded to him from 1996 till 2002.

8. The learned Advocate for the respondent has strenuously

supported the impugned award. He submits that firstly, the

appropriate Government should not have referred the dispute to the

Industrial Tribunal by permitting the petitioner to raise a challenge

to 14 enquiries and 14 punishments in one stroke and that too after

a delay of about 8 to 13 years. The appropriate Government should

have applied it's mind to the case and should have declined to make

a reference. Secondly, though the Industrial Disputes Act does not

prescribe any limitation, 14 punishments cannot be subjected to a

challenge in a single proceeding since each enquiry will have to be

tested independently on it's merits and that would constitute an

independent cause of action.

9. Shri Deshmukh, therefore, submits that, if the petitioner is

agreeable, the impugned award may be set aside and the said

Reference (IT) No. 3 of 2010 could be restricted only to the first

punishment imposed on the petitioner on 14.11.1996 in relation to

WP/8769/2015

the offence No. 396/1996. For the rest of the 13 enquiries and

punishments, the petitioner may raise independent industrial

disputes.

10. In the above backdrop, Shri Barde has consulted the

petitioner who is present in the Court and asked him whether he

would be inclined to raise 13 industrial disputes with regard to the

13 enquiries and punishments The petitioner has confirmed with

Shri Barde that he is prepared to raise 13 more industrial disputes.

Since I found that the petitioner was already superannuated three

years ago and would be spending his retired life in Court if this 14

cases are to be conducted, I called upon Shri Barde to once again

appraise the petitioner. Despite his best efforts, the petitioner stated

that he would contest the first reference and is prepared to raise 13

more industrial disputes and would litigate against the respondent

in Court.

11. Considering the above, this petition is partly allowed keeping

in view that the above mentioned two issues that are required to be

cast by the Industrial Tribunal, keeping in view the law laid down by

this Court in the matter of Maharashtra State Roadways Transport

Corporation Vs. Syed Saheblal Syed Nijam [2014 III CLR 547 =

2014 (4) Mah.L.J.687] were not cast. The impugned award is

WP/8769/2015

quashed and set aside. Reference (IT) No. 3 of 2010 is remitted to

the Industrial Tribunal only with reference to the Case

No.396/1996, in which, the petitioner was awarded the punishment

on 14.11.1996.

12. With regard to the remaining 13 enquiries and the 13

punishments, keeping in view that the petitioner was not awarded

any punishment in Case No.148 of 1998, the petitioner will be at

liberty to raise an independent Industrial Dispute in each of these 13

cases and punishments. If such industrial disputes are raised, the

appropriate Government / Conciliation Officer shall consider each

case on it's own merits and shall assign reasons for either referring

the dispute or for refusing to refer the dispute.

13. Learned counsel for the respective sides are agreeable to

appear before the Industrial Tribunal on 12.12.2017 by treating

Reference (IT) No.3 of 2010 as being restricted to Case No.396 of

1996. Formal notices need not be issued.

14. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ...

akl/d