Bombay High Court
The Maharashtra State Road ... vs Sk. Matin-Ur-Rehman on 10 February, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
wp4883.19 20
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4883/2019
Sheikh Matinor Rahman s/o Habibur Rahman
..vs..
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, thr. its Divisional
Controller, Nagpur and anr
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1140/2020
The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, thr. its Divisional
Controller, Nagpur and anr
..vs..
Sk.Matin-Ur Rehman
...................................................................................................................................................................
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order
and Registrar's orders
...................................................................................................................................................................
W.P. NO.4883/2019
Shri C.V.Jagdale, Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.S.Charpe, Counsel for respondents.
W.P.1140/2020
Shri R.S.Charpe, Counsel for petitioners.
Shri C.V.Jagdale, Counsel for the respondent.
CORAM : V.M.DESHPANDE J.
DATED : FEBRUARY 10, 2021.
1. Heard.
2.' Writ Petition No.4883/2019 is filed by Sheikh
Matinor Rahman s/o Habibur Rahman, whereas Writ
Petition No.1140/2020 is filed by the Maharashtra State
Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as, "the
employee" and "the corporation" respectively for the sake of
brevity).
3. The employee was admittedly working with the
.....2/-
wp4883.19 20
corporation since 1985. He was taken in employment as
Artisan-C (Tyre Fitter). He was promoted on 1.11.2003 as
Head Artisan.
4. The employee was terminated by the
corporation in respect of alleged misconduct on his part after
holding departmental enquiry. The said was challenged
before the Labour Court at Nagpur by filing Complaint
(ULPA) No.157/2009. The said complaint was partly
allowed by judgment and order dated 16.10.2014 by the
First Labour Court, Nagpur holding therein that punishment
imposed upon the employee was disproportionate and,
therefore, the employee was directed to be reinstated.
However, only 50% back wages were given. Against the
said, both the employee and the corporation approached to
the Industrial Court at Nagpur. Learned Member of the
Tribunal on 20.6.2018 dismissed both revisions filed by
employee as well as the corporation. Against the said,
present writ petitions are filed.
5. During the course of submissions, learned
counsel Shri R.S.Charpe for the corporation submitted that
in view of order passed in first round of litigation, the
corporation has already reinstated the employee and the
employee is in service and after attaining the age of
superannuation, he stands retired.
6. Now, question is only of back wages.
7. Prima facie, in respect of incident the
corporation has imposed punishment of payment of fine of
Rs.50/- for coworkers. Whereas, the employee was
.....3/-
wp4883.19 20
dismissed.
8. In this view of the matter, to test correctness of
the judgment giving only 50% back wages, Rule is given in
both these writ petitions.
9. Hence, RULE.
10. Insofar as Writ Petition No.1140/2020, which is
filed by the corporation, is concerned, there is concurrent
findings against the corporation in respect of directing the
corporation to pay 50% back wages. Admittedly, as on
today, 50% back wages awarded to the employee are not
paid. Therefore, the corporation is directed to deposit 50%
back wages, as directed by both the Courts below, before this
Court within a period of six weeks from today.
11. Subject to deposit of entire amount of back
wages, as directed by both Courts below, learned counsel for
the employee submitted that he will not take any coercive
step against the corporation. The statement is accepted.
12. Learned counsel Shri C.V.Jagdale and learned
counsel Shri R.S.Charpe, waive service on behalf of
respective respondents.
JUDGE
!! BRW !!
...../-
