Bombay High Court
Hni Office India Limited, Nagpur ... vs Padmakar T. Choudhari on 8 September, 2022
Bench: Manish Pitale
1/4 17-WP 5519.2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5519 OF 2022
HNI Office India Limited
vs.
Padmakar T. Choudhari
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. H. V. Thakur, Advocate for petitioner.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE J.
DATE : 08/09/2022
Heard Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by orders
passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court
on preliminary issues in a Complaint filed by the sole
respondent workman.
3. The Labour Court by the impugned order
dated 28/06/2022, has declared that the enquiry
conducted against the respondent was unfair,
improper and against the principles of natural justice
and findings of the enquiry are held to be perverse.
The said order has been confirmed by the Industrial
Court in the impugned order dated 25/08/2022.
KOLHE
2/4 17-WP 5519.2022
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has
invited attention of this Court to various paragraphs
of the impugned judgment and order passed by the
Labour Court to emphasize that at more places than
one the Labour Court itself has recorded positive
findings in favour of the petitioner, to the effect that
full opportunity was given to the respondent to
defend himself in the enquiry and that it could not be
said that there was denial of opportunity to the
respondent. On other aspects concerning the
principles of natural justice also the Labour Court
held in favour of the petitioner. Yet, the order was
ultimately passed against the petitioner only on one
ground i.e. that the enquiry conducted by the
petitioner was extended over long period of time and
it was not completed within the statutory period, due
to which the entire enquiry stood vitiated.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the Labour Court failed to even advert to
the Model Standing Orders governing the petitioner,
wherein sufficient provision is available for extending
the time period of enquiry for reasons to be recorded
in writing. It is submitted that in the present case,
the Enquiry Officer at every stage recorded reasons
why the enquiry remained pending. It was also
KOLHE
3/4 17-WP 5519.2022
highlighted that on 13 occasions the enquiry stood
adjourned at the behest of the respondent workman.
6. It was further emphasized that subsistence
allowance was throughout paid in accordance with
law to the respondent and that therefore, there was
no prejudice caused to the respondent due to the
enquiry remaining pending for about three years.
7. It was further submitted that there was no
ground of prejudice raised at all on behalf of the
respondent before the Labour Court, thereby,
indicating that the order passed by the Labour Court
against the petitioner was rendered unsustainable.
The Industrial Court failed to appreciate this aspect of
the matter. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of
this Court in the case of Poona Christian Medical
Association vs. Prabhakar s/o Namdeo Tambe,
2017(3) Mh.L.J. 190.
8. Considering the position of law and the
findings rendered by the Labour Court in favour of
the petitioner on the aspect of principles of natural
justice being complied with, a strong prima facie case
is made out by the petitioner in its favour.
KOLHE
4/4 17-WP 5519.2022
9. It is relevant that on an earlier occasion
when the petitioner had approached this Court, the
time line specified by the Industrial Court for
completion of proceedings before the Labour Court
was affirmed. But, since the petitioner has indeed
made out a strong prima facie case in the present
petition, appropriate direction in that regard will
have to be given while disposing of the present
petition.
10. Issue notice for final disposal, returnable
on 10/10/2022.
11. Hamdast granted.
12. In the meanwhile and till the next date of
listing, there shall be ad-interim stay of the impugned
orders passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial
Court. It is made clear that upon appeaance of the
respondent workman and while disposing the writ
petition, this Court will consider modification of the
timelines for disposal of the original Complaint, if
required.
JUDGE
Digitally signed byRAVIKANT
CHANDRAKANT KOLHE
Signing Date:08.09.2022
18:18
KOLHE
