Bombay High Court
Smt. Jyoti W/O Narendra Chawre vs Zilla Parishad, Nagpur Through ... on 3 February, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 WP5338.19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5338 OF 2019
PETITIONER : Smt. Jyoti W/o Narendra Chawre,
Aged about 57 years, Occu. Service,
R/o C/o Primary Health Centre,
Panch gaon, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : Zilla Parishad, Nagpur,
through its Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. C. V. Jagdale, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Shaikh Majid, Advocate for the respondent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 03, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Heard Mr. C.V. Jagdale, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Shaikh Majid, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The challenge in this writ petition is to the judgment
2 WP5338.19.odt
delivered by the learned Member, Industrial Court No.2, Nagpur
dated 29.06.2019 in Complaint ULP No. 155 of 2008, whereby the
complaint filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed.
4. Earlier to this writ petition, the petitioner had filed Writ
Petition No. 6226/2018 challenging the order passed by the
Industrial Court answering the preliminary issue in favour of the
respondent that the enquiry held against the petitioner was proper.
This writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. After
dismissal of the petition, the issue that was pending before the
Industrial Court was only in respect of the quantum of punishment.
5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
counsel for the petitioner could not remain present on the date of
hearing before the Industrial Court since he was unwell and he was
hospitalized. Though, the absence of the Advocate of the petitioner
is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent before the
Court, he seriously disputes about hospitalization of the counsel for
the petitioner.
6. Be that as it may. The counsel for the petitioner was not
present before the Court. According to Mr. Majid, learned counsel
3 WP5338.19.odt
for the respondent, on the said day, the petitioner could have filed
an application for adjournment, but it was also not filed. It is not
expected from the litigant to know the niceties of the procedure in
the Court. It is also informed to this Court that the petitioner is
already retired on attaining the age of superannuation. The
punishment that was imposed upon the petitioner by the respondent
was withholding of her two increments with cumulative effect and
the second punishment was that she was brought to the minimum
basic pay in time scale.
7. In my view, an opportunity ought to have been given to
the petitioner to submit her case in respect of the quantum of
punishment because, if the Court after hearing the counsel for the
petitioner finds that the punishment is disproportionate, it may have
its effect on the pension of the petitioner. In that view of the matter,
I pass the following order :
ORDER
1. The writ petition is allowed.
2. The judgment dated 29.06.2019 in Complaint ULP
No. 155/2008 passed by the learned Member,
Industrial Court No.2, Nagpur is hereby quashed and
set aside.
4 WP5338.19.odt
3. The matter is remanded back to the Industrial Court,
Nagpur only for hearing the counsel for the petitioner
on quantum of punishment that was awarded against
the petitioner by the respondent.
4. Learned Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur shall give
an opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the
petitioner as well as counsel for the respondent on
the point of quantum of punishment alone and pass
the order in accordance with law.
5. The petitioner and the respondent are directed to
appear before the learned Member, Industrial Court,
Nagpur on 24.02.2021 and after their appearance,
the learned Member is directed to decide the issue of
quantum of punishment afresh within a period of one
month from first appearance.
6. With this, the writ petition is disposed of. Rule
accordingly. No order as to costs.
V. M. Deshpande, J.
Diwale
Digitally signed
by Parag
Parag Diwale
Date:
Diwale 2021.02.04
16:57:31
+0530
