Bombay High Court
Divisional Controller, ... vs Narendra Ambadas Lawane on 11 October, 2022
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
(1) 49wp1968.19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1968 OF 2019
Divisional Controller MSRTC__ Vs. ___Narendra Ambadas Lawane
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.R.S.Charpe Advocate for petitioner
Mr. A.J.Pathak, Advocate for respondent.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 11/10/2022
1] Heard Mr. Charpe, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for
respondent.
2] Since the Respondent-employee was charge-
sheeted for an enquiry and the enquiry report dated
18.5.2012 found him guilty of misconduct and a final
show cause notice was issued on 19.11.2012 seeking to
impose the penalty of proposed termination, the same
was challenged before the learned Labour Court by way
of ULP Complaint No. 112/2012. The learned Labour
Court by its judgment dated 28.5.2015 set aside the
show cause notice and directed the petitioner to impose
minor punishment as per the Discipline and Appeal
Procedure (pg. 35). This judgment of the learned Labour
Court was not challenged by the petitioner-employer, as a
result of which it attained finality.
(2) 49wp1968.19
3] Thereafter by order dated 31.3.2016, three
increments of the employee were permanently barred
(pg 36) and the period of suspension from 22.5.2012 to
21.6.2012 was considered as a period on leave. This
imposition of penalty was challenged by the employee-
respondent before the learned Industrial Court, on the
ground that such imposition was not a minor
punishment. The learned Industrial Court by the
impugned order dated 26.9.2017 (pg 53) has allowed
the complaint and has set aside the impugned
punishment order dated 31.3.2016.
4] Mr. Charpe, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the punishment rendered was fair
and proper, considering the nature of the misconduct and
the impugned order is therefore required to be quashed
and set aside.
5] Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the
respondent opposes the same contending that it is not a
minor punishment, but a major punishment, for which he
places reliance upon clause 7 of the Discipline and
Appeal Procedure.
6] The copy of the Discipline and Appeal
Procedure as provided to this Court by the learned
counsel for the respondent/employee is not disputed by
the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of
(3) 49wp1968.19
Clause 7 thereof would indicate that the
stoppage/withholding of increment for a period not
exceeding three annual increments is a major
punishment. Considering that the judgment of the
learned Labour Court dated 28.5.2015 has attained
finality and directs imposition of minor punishment, it
was not permissible for the petitioner-employer to have
acted in a manner contrary to the aforesaid judgment of
the learned Labour Court, considering which, I do not see
any reason to disagree with the judgment of the learned
Industrial Court. The petition is therefore without any
merits and the same is dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
Digitally sign byRAJESH
VASANTRAO JALIT
Location:
Signing Date:12.10.2022 18:37
